THE    BIBLE'S    MESSAGE     TO    MODERN    LIFE 


The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Israel's  History  from  the  Settlement 
to  the  Assyrian  Period 


BY 

CHARLES  FOSTER  KENT,  PH.D.,  Lnr.D., 

Woolsey  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Yale  University 

JEREMIAH  WHIFFLE  JENKS,  PH.D.,  LLJX, 

Professor  of  Government  and  Director  of  the  Division  of  Public  Affairs  in 
New  York  University 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 
1915 


£6131 


COPYRIGHT,  1915 
BY  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


^p 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION v 

The  Testing  of  Israel's  Ideals.     Plan  of  Work  and  Books  of  Reference. 

CHAPTER       I.    THE  NECESSITY  OP  POLITICAL  UNITY.    The  Union 

of  the  Hebrew  Tribes  under  Saul.  I  Sam.  4—14 1 

1.  The  Failure  of  the  First  Hebrew  Federation.  *2.  The  Influences  that 
Brought  the  Tribes  Together.  3.  Samuel's  Work  as  a  Statesman.  4.  The 
Successful  Struggle  with  the  Philistines.  5.  Centralization  of  Authority 
under  Saul.  6.  The  Balance  between  Federal  and  Local  Authority. 

CHAPTER      II.    THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  A  GREAT  LEADER.  David's 

Training  for  Kingship.    I  Sam.  16—18 : 30 ;  20—30 14 

1.  David's  Personal  Charm.  2.  His  Training  in  the  Court  of  Saul.  3. 
As  a  Fugitive  in  the  Wilderness.  4.  Among  the  Philistines.  5.  His 
Religious  Spirit  and  Patriotism.  6.  The  Spirit  and  Standards  of  an  Age. 

CHAPTER  III.  THE  NEED  OF  BREADTH  AND  SELF-CONTROL  IN 
STATESMANSHIP.  Saul's  Character  and  Fate.  I  Sam.  19 ;  3 1 ; 
USam.  1 33 

1.  The  Weakening  Power  of  Jealousy.  2.  The  Contrast  between  Saul 
and  David.  3.  Meaning  of  Religion  in  a  Crisis.  4.  The  Fatal  Battle 
of  Gilboa.  5.  David's  Eulogy  of  Saul  and  His  Work.  6.  The  Essentials 
of  Effective  Statesmanship. 

CHAPTER     IV.    THE  RIGHT  AND  WRONG  OF  IMPERIAL  EXPANSION. 

David  as  an  Empire  Builder.    II  Sam.  2—8;  23:8 — 39 51 

1.  The  Decline  of  Saul's  Kingdom.  2.  Throwing  off  the  Philistine  Yoke. 
3.  The  Unification  of  All  Israel.  4.  David's  Reasons  for  Building  an 
Empire.  5.  His  Methods  of  Conquest.  6.  The  Right  of  Foreign  Con- 
quest. 

CHAPTER  V.  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  PERSONAL  CHARACTER  IN  A 
PUBLIC  OFFICIAL.  David's  Weakness  and  Sins  and  then- 
Effects.  II  Sam.  9—20;  I  Kgs.  1:1-2:12 63 

1.  David's  Fall.  2.  Remorse  that  Did  not  Undo  Wrong.  3.  The  Shadow 
of  David's  Crime.  4.  The  Revolt  of  Absalom.  5.  The  Tragedy  of 
David's  Later  Years.  6.  The  Influence  of  a  Great  Man's  Character  on 
His  Race. 

CHAPTER     VI.    CULTURE  WITHOUT  RELIGION.    Solomon's  Policy. 

I  Kgs.  2: 13—4:6;  4:29-34;  5: 1—8:66 71 

1.  The  Way  in  which  Solomon  Became  King.  2.  His  Machiavellianism. 
3.  His  Reputation  for  Wisdom.  4.  His  Ideas  of  Religious  Worship. 
5.  Church  and  State.  6.  The  Trend  of  Modern  Civilization. 

CHAPTER  VII.  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  IMPORTANCE  OF  A  RIGHT 
FINANCIAL  POLICY.  Solomon's  System  of  Revenue  and 
Expenditure.  I  Kgs.  4:7-28;  9: 10— 11:40 83 

1.  The  Object  and  Right  of  Taxation.  2.  Solomon's  Needs  for  Revenue 
3.  His  Sources  of  Revenue.  4.  The  Effects  of  his  Policy  upon  Economic 
Conditions.  5.  Effects  upon  the  Political  Situation.  6.  The  Citizen's 
Attitude  toward  Taxation. 


Hi 

859808 


iv  Contents 

CHAPTER  VIII.    THE  EXPRESSION  OF  THE  WILL  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 

The  Division  of  the  Hebrew  Kingdom.    I  Kgs.  12 93 

1.  TheDemands  of  the  Northern  Tribes.  2.  The  Folly  of  Denying  the 
People  Their  Rights.  3.  The  Political  Effects  of  the  Division.  4.  Its 
Social  and  Religious  Effects.  5.  The  Right  of  the  People  to  Express  and 
Enforce  Their  Will.  6.  Ways  of  Expressing  the  Will  of  the  People. 

CHAPTER     IX.     RELIGION  AND  POLITICS.     Elijah's  Arraignment 

of  Ahab's  Policy.     I  Kgs.  16:21—19:43 106 

1.  Israel's  Political  Problems.     2.  Ahab's  Political  Policy  and  Its  Effects. 

3.  Elijah  the  Tishbite.     4.  His  Interpretation  of  the  Religious  Crisis.     5. 
The  Conflict  and  Reconciliation  of  Politics  and  Religion.     6.  Modern 
Politics  and  Religion. 

CHAPTER      X.     THE    RIGHTS    OF    CITIZENSHIP.     The    Story    of 

Naboth's  Vineyard.      I  Kgs.  21 118 

1.  The  Oriental  Attitude  Toward  Individual  Rights.  2.  Ahab's  Per- 
version of  Justice  for  Personal  Ends.  3.  Elijah's  Advocacy  of  the  Rights 
of  the  Individual.  4.  The  Consequences  of  Ahab's  Despotic  Policy.  5. 
The  Rights  of  the  Citizen  Today.  6.  How  These  Rights  Can  be  Pro- 
tected. 

CHAPTER     XI.    SACRIFICING    PERSONAL    INTERESTS   TO    PUBLIC 

INTERESTS.     Micaiah's  Reply  to  Ahab.      I  Kgs.  22 128 

1.  The  Four  Hundred  False  Prophets.  2.  The  Man  who  Dared  Declare 
the  Truth.  3.  Fate  of  a  Ruler  who  Refused  to  Heed  Good  Counsel. 

4.  The  Function  of  Minorities.     5.  The  Seeming  Conflict  of  Personal  and 
Public  Interest.     6.  Ways  in  which  Men  may  Effectively  Serve  Their  City 
and  Nation. 

CHAPTER  XII.     A  NATION'S  DESTINY.     Israel's  Conception  of  Its 

Mission.    Deut.4— 9 138 

1.  Israel's  Unfolding  National  Ideals.  2.  The  Effects  of  Great  Crises 
upon  Israel's  Development.  3.  The  Influence  of  the  Prophets.  4.  The 
Sense  in  which  the  Israelites  Were  the  Chosen  People.  5.  The  Destiny 
of  a  Modern  Nation.  6.  The  Significance  of  the  Individual  Citizen's 
Religious  Attitude. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE  TESTING  OF  ISRAEL'S  IDEALS. 

The  Hebrews  received  from  their  early  ancestors,  and  above 
all  from  Moses,  the  prophet  and  founder  of  their  nation,  certain 
unique  sentiments  and  ideals.  The  first  was  the  deep  sense  of 
gratitude  and  loyalty  to  the  God  who,  they  felt,  had  delivered 
them  from  cruel  industrial  oppression  in  Egypt  and  from  the 
many  perils  of  the  Wilderness.  It  was  loyalty  expressed  chiefly 
through  ceremonial  observations;  but  from  the  first  it  appears 
also  to  have  guided  the  moral  acts  and  to  have  shaped  the  charac- 
ters of  these  early  Israelites.  A  personal  feeling  of  fellowship 
with  Jehovah  and  with  members  of  their  race  was  the  essence 
of  the  religious  faith  which  Moses  transmitted  to  his  followers. 
Gradually  also  the  conscious  belief  in  a  divine  destiny  for 
their  race  dawned  upon  them. 

From  their  ancient  communistic  tribal  life  they  inherited 
many  democratic  ideals.  Each  man  had  a  voice  in  deciding 
questions  of  common  interest.  Their  leaders  and  rulers  were 
the  choice  of  the  people  and  ruled  as  the  servants  rather  than 
as  the  masters  of  their  nation.  Israel's  ideal  of  government 
from  the  beginning  was  the  rule  "of  the  Deople,  by  the  people, 
for  the  people." 

The  family  was  the  cornerstone  of  the  Hebrew  common- 
wealth, and  its  rights  and  purity  were  jealously  guarded. 
Each  individual  enjoyed  great  political  and  religious  liberty; 
but,  at  the  same  time,  he  recognized  his  solemn  obligations 
to  serve  even  at  the  cost  of  his  life,  if  need  be,  the  social  unity 
of  which  he  was  a  part  and  the  one  God  who  was  recognized 
by  that  group. 

These  and  kindred  ideals  alone  distinguished  the  Hebrews 
from  the  hundreds  of  ancient  tribes  and  peoples  that  have 
long  since  passed  into  oblivion  without  creating  even  a  ripple 
upon  the  boundless  sea  of  history.  Many  of  these  ideals  were 
still  in  the  process  of  development  when  the  Hebrew  clans 
emerged  from  the  Wilderness  and  entered  the  thickly  populated, 
much  contested  land  of  Canaan.  The  period  from  the  settle- 
ment to  the  advent  of  the  Assyrian  conquerors  was  pre- 


vi  Introduction 

eminently  the  era  when  their  inherited  political,  social,  moral, 
and  religious  ideals  were  tested.  Then  began  that  age-long 
contest  between  the  strongly  intrenched  Canaanite  cults  and 
the  simpler,  more  austere  religion  of  Jehovah.  In  the  end 
the  religion  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  emerged  victorious, 
but  the  process  of  testing  was  so  severe  and  prolonged  that 
Israel's  ideals  were  crystallized  into  such  an  imperishable 
form  that  they  abide  centuries  after  the  Hebrew  people  has 
ceased  to  be  a  nation,  and  today  they  constitute  its  supreme 
gift  to  humanity. 

PLAN  OP  WORK  AND  BOOKS  OP  REFERENCE. 

This  book  and  the  other  volumes  in  this  series  are  primarily 
planned  to  meet  the  needs  of  college  students,  general  readers, 
and  adult  Bible'  classes.  Those  who  are  able  to  command  more 
time  and  wish  to  do  thorough  work  will  find  in  the  list  of  Parallel 
Readings  at  the  beginning  of  each  chapter  carefully  selected 
references  to  the  best  authorities  on  the  subject  treated.  For 
their  guidance  Subjects  for  Further  Study  are  also  provided. 

The  books  suggested  in  connection  with  this  course  have 
been  selected  in  order  that  each  reader  may  have  for  his  in- 
dividual use  a  practical  working  library  covering  the  field 
which  it  represents.  The  following  books  and  also  some  standard 
work  on  American  history  should  be  at  hand  for  constant 
reference: 

Kent,  C.  F.,  The  Historical  Bible,  Vols.  II  and  III.  They 
contain  the  important  biblical  passages  arranged  in  chronologi- 
cal order  and  are  provided  with  the  historical,,  geographical,  and 
archaeological  notes  required  for  their  clear  understanding. 
The  translation  is  based  on  the  oldest  sources  and  embodies 
the  constructive  results  of  modern  biblical  research.  New 
York,  $1.00  each. 

Croly,  Herbert,  The  Promise  of  American  Life.  Gives  an 
interesting  and  instructive  account  of  the  leading  political 
problems  of  American  history  and  of  the  forces  and  men  that 
have  contributed  to  their  solution.  Many  of  the  questions 
before  the  rulers  of  ancient  Israel  are  paralleled  in  American 
history,  and  this  volume  gives  the  American  answers.  New 
York,  $2.00. 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Govern- 
ment. Prepared  as  a  volume  of  the  American  Citizen  Series 


Introduction  vii 

to  show  the  functions  of  public  opinion  in  modern  govern- 
ments. As  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  gives  the  best  illus- 
tration among  the  early  peoples  of  the  power  and  modes 
of  expression  of  public  opinion  in  ancient  times  the  com- 
parative study  is  especially  helpful.  New  York,  $2.25. 

For  further  parallel  study  the  following  books  are  suggested: 

American  Statesmen  Series.  An  excellent  series  written  by 
authorities,  containing  recognized  concise  biographies  of  several 
of  the  greatest  American  statesmen  referred  to  in  the  Subjects 
for  Further  Study. 

Hazen,  Charles  Downer,  Europe  since  1815.  One  of  the 
latest  and  best  of  the  brief  histories  of  Europe,  which  lays 
emphasis  upon  political  movements  and  forces.  New  York, 
$3.75. 

Guizot,  M.,  History  of  Civilization  in  Europe.  A  standard 
work  on  the  development  of  modern  civilized  states.  New 
York,  $1.50. 

Kent,  C.  F.,  Israel's  Historical  and  Biographical  Narratives. 
(Vol.  II  of  Students'  Old  Testament),  New  York,  $2.75.  Pre- 
sents in  a  clear  modern  translation  the  original  sources  incor- 
porated in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
origin  and  literary  history  of  these  books,  and  the  important 
parallel  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  literature. 

Kent,  C.  F.,  Biblical  Geography  and  History,  New  York, 
$1.50.  Portrays  the  physical  characteristics  of  Palestine  and 
the  potent  influences  which  that  land  has  exerted  throughout 
the  ages  upon  its  inhabitants. 

Lippmann,  Walter,  A  Preface  to  Politics;  Drift  and  Mastery. 
Two  suggestive  stimulating  books  indicating  the  subtle  forces 
that  determine  political  action  and  results;  a  sketch  of  many  of 
our  social  ills,  a  criticism  of  many  remedies,  and  suggestions 
of  hopeful  change. 

Note  also  references  in  Volume  I,  The  Making  of  a  Nation. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  NECESSITY  OF  POLITICAL  UNITY. 

THE  UNION  OF  THE  HEBREW  TRIBES  UNDER  SAUL. — 
I  Sam.  4—14. 
Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II  (The  Founders  and  Rulers  of  United  Israel), 
pp.  63-83. 

Croly,  The  Promise  of  American  Life,  Chaps.  I,  II;  Lowell,  Public 
Opinion,  Chaps.  I,  II. 

Then  the  men  of  Israel  said  to  Gideon,  Rule  over  us,  both  you  and 
your  son,  and  your  son's  son  also;  for  you  have  saved  us  from  the  hand 
of  Midian.— Judg.  8:  22. 

Then  Samuel  took  the  vial  of  oil,  and  poured  it  on  Saul's  head,  and 
kissed  him  and  said,  Hath  not  Jehovah  anointed  you  to  be  a  prince  over 
his  people  Israel?  And  you  shall  reign  over  the  people  of  Jehovah  and 
deliver  them  from  the  power  of  their  enemies  around  about  .  .  .  and  you 
shall  do  as  the  occasion  offers;  for  God  is  with  you. — 1  Sam.  10: 1,  76. 

When  in  Innocency,  or  when  by  intellectual  perception,  he  attains 
to  say:  I  love  the  Right;  Truth  is  beautiful  within  and  without,  forever 
more.  Virtue,  I  am  thine;  save  me;  use  me;  thee  will  I  serve,  day  and 
night,  in  great,  in  small,  that  I  may  be  not  virtuous,  but  virtue;  then 
is  the  end  of  the  Creation  answered,  and  God  is  well  pleased. — Emerson. 

Democracy  is  more  than  the  absence  of  czars,  more  than  freedom,  more 
than  equal  opportunity.  It  is  a  way  of  life,  a  use  of  freedom,  an  embrace 
of  opportunity. — Lippmann. 

Unity  of  sentiment  and  of  ideals  is  what,  more  than  anything  else,  binds 
a  people  together. — Albert  Shaw. 

No  one  can  be  perfectly  free  till  all  are  free. — Spencer. 

I. 

THE  FAILURE  OP  THE  FIRST  HEBREW  FEDERATION. 
Israel's  pioneer  period  illustrates  the  well-known  homely  but 
significant  utterance  in  connection  with  the  signing  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence : "  Unless  we  hang  together,  we  shall 
all  hang  separately."  Notwithstanding  their  brilliant  victory 
on  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon  under  the  leadership  of  Deborah  and 
Barak,  the  Hebrews  soon  fell  a  prey  to  their  hostile  neighbors, 
for  the  forces  making  for  division  were  stronger  than  those 
binding  them  together.  The  tribal  instincts  which  they  had 
brought  from  the  desert  led  them  to  regard  with  suspicion 
any  centralized  authority,  The  dividing  hills  and  valleys  of 

l 


2  The  Toting  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Pa,lestjn$  intensified  this  tendency  toward  disunion.  The 
re&df  was  that  each  tribe  under  its  individual  leaders  main- 
tained its  independence,  fought  its  own  battles,  and  struggled 
to  work  out  its  own  problems.  The  so-called  judges  of  this 
period  were  simply  local  chieftains,  who,  as  needs  required, 
rallied  their  tribesmen  and  delivered  them  from  the  bondage 
of  invaders.  The  prestige  thus  won  gave  to  these  deliverers 
a  local  authority.  In  the  ancient  East  the  judges  were  the 
civil  and  religious  officials.  To  them  were  referred  questions 
of  dispute  between  individuals  and  clans,  even  as  they  are 
today  to  the  sheiks  of  the  Arab  tribes.  Among  all  Semitic 
peoples  civil  and  judicial  duties  were  so  closely  connected 
that  among  the  Phoenicians,  for  example,  the  common  designa- 
tion of  a  governor  or  ruler  came  from  the  same  root  as  the 
Hebrew  word  for  judge. 

The  rule  of  the  tribal  deliverers  or  judges  was  local;  none 
ruled  over  all  Israel.  Thus  Samson  was  the  great  hero  of  the 
southern,  Jephthah  of  the  east-Jordan,  and  Gideon  of  the 
central  tribes.  Several  of  these  deliverers  were  probably 
contemporary.  The  impression  that  they  ruled  in  succession 
over  all  Israel  is  due  to  the  additions  of  the  latest  editor  of  the 
book  of  Judges. 

The  most  significant  of  these  petty  rulers  was  Gideon,  for 
his  rule  represented  the  beginning  of  the  kingship  among  the 
Hebrews.  The  oldest  narrative  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the 
origin  of  his  little  kingdom.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  political 
unity  among  the  Israelites  the  Midianites,  the  early  repre- 
sentatives of  the  modern  Arab  hordes,  seeing  their  opportunity 
for  plunder,  came  pressing  in  from  the  eastern  desert.  The 
action  of  the  elders  of  Succoth  and  Penuel  implies  that  most 
if  not  all  of  the  east-Jordan  towns  paid  tribute  to  these  desert 
marauders  in  order  to  secure  immunity  from  their  attacks. 
Emboldened  by  their  successes  the  Midianites  crossed  the 
Jordan  and  followed  the  valleys  that  led  westward  to  the 
uplands  occupied  by  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh. 
Here  they  met  with  resistance.  In  one  of  these  skirmishes 
the  brothers  of  Gideon  the  Ophrahite  were  slain.  Thus 
devolved  upon  Gideon  the  sacred  and  social  responsibility  of 
avenging  his  brothers'  blood.  Promptly  he  rallied  three 
hundred  of  his  tribesmen  and  set  out  in  pursuit  of  the  Midian- 
ites, who  were  already  retiring  to  the  desert. 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  3 

Gideon's  home  was  probably  at  the  present  Am  el-Farah, 
about  ten  miles  northeast  of  the  Shechem,  at  the  head  of  the 
valley  which  leads  southeastward  to  the  Jordan.  Down  this 
valley,  then,  he  followed  the  Midianites  with  his  warriors, 
crossing  the  Jordan  either  at  the  present  Damiah  ford  or  a  little 
further  north,  opposite  the  point  where  the  Jabbok  comes 
down  from  the  hills  of  Gilead.  The  Hebrew  town  of  Succoth 
guarded  the  entrance  to  this  valley  and  Penuel  was  probably 
a  little  further  eastward  along  the  bank  of  the  Jabbok.  Breath- 
ing vengeance  upon  the  elders  of  these  towns,  which  refused  to 
give  him  food,  Gideon  continued  his  pursuit  until  he  overtook 
the  Midianites  encamped  on  the  borders  of  the  eastern  desert. 
His  method  of  attack  was  typical  of  border  warfare.  While 
the  Midianites  were  sleeping  without  suspicion  of  danger, 
Gideon's  followers  with  torches  concealed  in  earthen  jars 
stealthily  surrounded  the  hostile  camp.  At  a  given  signal  the 
Hebrews  sounded  the  battle  cry,  "For  Jehovah  and  Gideon," 
and  broke  their  jars.  The  Midianites,  awakened  suddenly, 
thinking  that  they  were  surrounded  by  a  mighty  host,  fled  in 
wild  panic.  Gideon  was  left  in  possession  of  their  camp  and 
with  a  reputation  for  valor  and  prowess  that  made  a  profound 
impression  upon  the  Hebrew  tribesmen  both  east  and  west 
of  the  Jordan.  This  impression  was  deepened  by  the  bloody 
vengeance  which  he  visited  upon  the  elders  of  Succoth  and 
Penuel.  Hence  when  he  returned  to  Ophrah,  his  clansmen 
and  those  of  the  tribes  immediately  adjacent  asked  him  not 
merely  to  rule  over  them  but  also  to  transmit  his  power  to  his 
descendant. 

Thus  as  a  result  of  the  needs  of  the  situation  certain  of 
the  Hebrew  tribes  made  this  valiant  deliverer  their  hereditary 
king. 

The  first  Hebrew  kingdom  thus  established  by  prowess 
suddenly  collapsed  because  Gideon's  successor  Abimelech  was 
incapable  and  brutal.  He  secured  the  succession  by  the 
murder  of  his  brothers  and  ruled  as  a  tyrant  rather  than  as 
a  protector  of  his  people.  The  fact  that  he  was  the  son  of 
a  Canaanite  mother  undoubtedly  contributed  to  his  downfall, 
for  through  her  he  inherited  the  despotic  Canaanite  ideal  of 
rulership  rather  than  the  democratic  ideal  of  the  Hebrews. 
His  ignominious  death  at  the  hands  of  a  woman  was  popularly 
regarded  as  a  divine  judgment  for  his  crime.  Thus  the  first 


4  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

attempt  to  unite  the  local  tribes  under  a  central  government 
proved  a  disastrous  failure. 

Was  the  assassination  of  a  ruler's  rivals  looked  upon  then 
with  the  horror  now  felt  for  such  a  crime?  Compare  this 
natural  and  important  step  in  the  development  of  the  Hebrew 
nation,  by  which  Gideon  became  king,  with  similar  acts  in 
the  history  of  other  peoples,  e.g.,  England.  What  was  the 
difference  between  the  other  so-called  judges  and  Gideon? 

II. 

THE  INFLUENCES  THAT  BROUGHT  THE  TRIBES  TOGETHER. 

Powerful  influences  were  required  to  overcome  the  deep- 
seated  antipathy  and  suspicion  with  which  the  Hebrews 
regarded  all  centralized  authority.  These  influences  were 
supplied  by  the  political  situation.  The  pressure  from  the  desert, 
which  Gideon's  victory  for  the  moment  relieved,  became 
after  his  death  even  stronger  than  before.  The  Ammonites, 
the  near  neighbors  of  the  Hebrews  on  the  east,  also  took  ad- 
vantage of  the  lack  of  unity  among  the  tribes  to  extend  their 
suzerainty,  until  in  the  days  of  Saul  it  extended  even  to  the 
Jordan.  The  tribes  of  southern  as  well  as  of  eastern  Palestine 
felt  the  same  pressure  from  the  desert.  The  foes,  however, 
who  at  last  compelled  the  Hebrews  to  unite  were  the  Philistines. 

A  little  before  the  Hebrews  entered  Palestine  from  the 
east,  the  Philistines,  moving  eastward  and  southward  by 
land  and  sea  from  their  homes  in  southern  Asia  Minor  and  the 
islands  of  the  eastern  Mediterranean,  had  occupied  the  broad, 
fertile  coast  plains  west  of  the  uplands  of  Judah.  The  pro- 
ductive fields  of  Philistia  furnished  the  background  for  a  rich 
agricultural  civilization.  This  centered  about  five  great  cities, 
surrounded  by  strong  walls  and  ruled  by  petty  kings.  Through 
this  territory  ran  the  great  coast  road  which  brought  to  the 
Philistines  the  civilization,  the  products  and  the  arts  of  Egypt, 
Phoenicia  and  Babylonia.  Under  the  pressure  of  common 
danger  and  their  ambitions  for  conquest  the  Philistine  cities 
formed  a  coalition  which  enabled  them  to  act  as  a  political 
unit.  Hence,  in  the  richness  of  their  territory,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  their  resources  and  civilization,  and  in  their  political 
unity,  the  Philistines  far  outstripped  the  Israelites. 

Conflict  between  these  rapidly  increasing,  ambitious  peoples 
was  inevitable.  The  picturesque  stories  told  of  Samson  reflect 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  3 

the  beginnings  of  that  conflict.  Born  in  one  of  the  villages 
that  guarded  the  entrance  to  a  broad  valley  leading  down  from 
the  Judean  hills  to  the  Philistine  plains,  Samson  was  the 
incarnation  of  the  spirit  manifested  in  this  border  warfare. 
The  relation  between  the  Hebrews  and  Philistines  was  still 
so  close  that  intermarriage  was  common.  Their  hostilities 
took  the  form  of  forays  rather  than  definite  campaigns.  It  is 
possible  and  probable  that  popular  tradition  magnified  Samson's 
strength  and  achievements. 

Was  he  in  every  sense  a  popular  hero?  How  do  the  qualities 
which  he  possessed  appeal  to  the  small  boy  of  today?  In 
what  respects  was  he  a  prototype  of  the  modern  athlete?  How 
do  you  estimate  his  moral  character?  Was  his  patriotism  of 
a  broad,  constructive  type?  What  was  the  total  effect  of 
his  activity?  How  far  should  Samson's  character  be  held  up 
as  a  type  to  be  emulated  today? 

The  real  crisis  came  to  the  Hebrews  when  the  Philistines 
at  last  massed  their  forces  and  marched  northward  along  the 
coast  plains,  until  they  came  to  one  of  the  broader  passes 
that  opened  into  central  Palestine.  The  result  of  the  initial 
engagement  was  an  overwhelming  defeat  for  the  Hebrews. 
Lacking  organization  and  a  leader  prominent  and  strong  enough 
to  unite  them,  they  brought  from  the  northern  sanctuary  of 
Shiloh  the  ark,  which  symbolized  the  presence  of  Jehovah. 
Placing  it  in  the  forefront  of  battle,  they  hoped  that  Jehovah 
would  perform  a  miracle  in  their  defense,  even  as  the  sudden 
storm  had  brought  them  victory  on  the  memorable  battle- 
field beside  the  River  Kishon.  The  ancient  Hebrew  narrative 
states  that  even  the  Philistines,  familiar  with  the  traditions 
that  gathered  about  the  ark,  were  terrified,  but  bravely  faced 
the  issue.  In  vain  the  Hebrews  strove  to  force  their  Deity 
to  intercede  in  their  behalf.  They  had  yet  to  learn  in  the 
hard  school  of  experience  the  lessons  necessary  to  prepare 
them  for  the  appreciation  of  ultimate  national  unity  and 
independence.  Not  only  were  the  Hebrews  defeated,  but  their 
ark  was  captured  and  the  Philistines  were  left  masters  of  all 
of  the  west-Jordan  territory. 

Do  the  stories  regarding  the  fortunes  of  tne  ark  among  the 
Philistines  suggest  that  those  who  bore  it  were  infected  by 
the  bubonic  plague?  Were  the  Hebrews  to  whom  the  ark 
was  returned  immune  from  this  infection?  Do  the  golden 


6  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

tumors  or  boils  with  which  the  Philistines  thought  to  appease 
the  god  of  the  Hebrews  suggest  the  nature  of  the  contagion? 
How  far  is  the  popular  belief  that  calamity  or  misfortune  is 
an  evidence  of  wrong  doing  and  a  sign  of  divine  displeasure 
still  prevalent?  What  is  the  real  foundation  for  this  belief 
in  a  great  majority  of  cases?  How  far  and  how  are  great 
afflictions,  like  those  suffered  by  the  Hebrews  at  this  period, 
but  the  open  door  to  larger  and  nobler  experiences?  Do  all 
seeming  misfortunes,  if  rightly  met  and  interpreted,  offer 
opportunities  for  real  progress?  Illustrate  in  the  history  of 
the  United  States.  In  your  own  experience. 

III. 
SAMUEL'S  WORK  AS  A  STATESMAN. 

The  Philistine  armies  followed  up  the  repeated  victories 
over  the  Hebrews  and  apparently  subjugated  all  of  southern 
Palestine.  To  make  this  subjugation  complete  they  estab- 
lished garrisons  at  strategic  points,  and  as  far  as  possible 
disarmed  the  Hebrews,  so  as  to  render  an  uprising  impossible. 
The  defeat  of  their  armies  and  the  capture  of  the  ark  un- 
doubtedly struck  a  severe  blow  at  their  faith  in  Jehovah,  for 
like  children  they  still  depended  upon  the  visible  evidence  of 
his  power  and  presence.  It  was  natural  for  the  common 
people  to  think  of  the  god  of  the  conquerors  as  the  stronger. 
The  next  step  was  to  worship  the  stronger  deity.  Not  only 
Israel's  future  as  a  nation,  but  also  Israel's  faith  was  in  peril. 

The  one  man  who  appears  to  have  appreciated  the  significance 
of  the  crisis  was  Samuel,  a  seer  of  Ramah  in  southwestern 
Ephraim.  The  later  account,  preserved  in  chapters  1  to  3,  7, 
and  12  of  I  Samuel,  represents  him  as  a  judge  ruling  over  all 
Israel,  and  this  naturally  reflects  the  tendency  of  later  genera- 
tions to  idealize  the  personality  and  work  of  the  great  prophet. 
The  oldest  narrative,  preserved  in  chapters  9  and  10,  as  well  as 
the  subsequent  development  of  Israel's  history,  gives  a  luminous 
picture  of  Samuel's  work  as  a  statesman.  It  was  a  work 
done  not  in  public,  but  in  private. 

Like  many  of  the  great  events  in  the  world's  history  the 
setting  was  exceedingly  simple.  As  tradition  says  that  the 
cackling  of  geese  saved  Rome,  even  so  the  straying  of  a  drove 
of  young  she-asses,  belonging  to  a  wealthy  Benjamite  by  the 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  7 

name  of  Kish,  led  his  son  Saul  in  their  quest  far  up  among 
the  hills  of  Ephraim.  Not  finding  the  asses  and  being  near 
the  town  of  Ramah,  the  name  of  which  means  height  and 
suggests  that  it  was  one  of  the  many  hill  towns  that  are  to 
be  found  in  southwestern  Ephraim,  Saul  at  the  advice  of  his 
servant  went  to  consult  the  seer  who  dwelt  there.  The  nar- 
rative indicates  that  Saul  had  not  before  that  time  heard  of 
Samuel,  though  it  appears  that  Saul  was  already  known  to  the 
seer.  At  the  high  place  in  the  upper  part  of  the  town  he 
found  the  seer  seated  in  the  midst  of  the  elders,  presiding 
over  a  sacrificial  feast.  At  once  the  young  Benjamite  was 
given  the  seat  of  honor  and  then  remained  as  Samuel's 
guest.  In  a  sense  it  was  on  the  housetop  in  the  hill  town 
of  Ramah  that  the  Hebrew  kingdom  was  born.  The  nature 
of  the  conversation  between  the  patriot  warrior  of  Ben- 
jamin and  the  seer  of  Ramah  may  be  inferred  from  the 
manner  in  which  they  parted.  On  the  outskirts  of  the  town, 
as  they  bade  each  other  farewell  in  the  early  morning,  Samuel 
poured  upon  the  head  of  Saul  the  oil  that  made  him  Jehovah's 
anointed  and  symbolized  his  call  to  a  great  mission.  The 
words  of  the  prophet  made  clear  the  meaning  of  the  symbol. 
Saul  was  to  be  Israel's  champion  and  ruler.  With  the  ex- 
hortation to  act  as  the  occasion  offered,  Saul  went  forth  in- 
spired by  a  new  and  noble  patriotic  impulse.  Even  with  the 
fanatical  religious  enthusiasts,  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  whom 
he  had  probably  hitherto  despised,  he  shared  the  wild  en- 
thusiasm to  be  God's  man  and  to  go  forth  and  fight  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah  against  his  foes. 

The  event  confirmed  the  wisdom  of  Samuel's  insight.  The 
young  giant  Saul,  with  his  courage  and  prowess  and  patriotic 
enthusiasm,  was  the  man  supremely  fitted  to  rally  the  dis- 
organized, dispirited  Hebrews,  and  to  lead  them  successfully 
against  the  many  foes  who  preyed  upon  them.  Coming  from 
the  little  tribe  of  Benjamin,  that  had  settled  among  the  lime- 
stone hills  between  the  larger  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Judah, 
Saul  was  able  to  overcome  the  bitter  jealousies  between  the 
north  and  the  south  and  to  bind  together  the  Hebrew  clans 
of  southern  and  central  Palestine.  In  inspiring  Saul  to  act 
as  occasion  offered,  Samuel  launched  the  Hebrew  kingdom, 
and  in  so  doing  prepared  for  its  subsequent  success  and  achieve- 
ments. Later  traditions,  influenced  by  the  memory  of  the 


8  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

disastrous  reigns  of  such  kings  as  Solomon  and  Ahaz,  repre- 
sented the  great  prophet  as  opposed  to  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom;  but  in  the  light  of  the  oldest  records  Samuel 
was  the  real  king-maker,  for  he  was  the  true  statesman,  who 
appreciated  the  needs  of  the  situation,  found  the  man  fitted 
to  guide  his  people,  and  inspired  him  to  act  effectively. 

Do  you  recall  any  other  great  king-makers  in  the  world's 
history?  Why  could  Samuel  himself  not  have  done  the  work 
which  Saul  accomplished?  Which  is  the  greater  character, 
Samuel  or  Saul?  Why?  Which  is  the  nobler  goal  for  which 
to  strive,  public  recognition  or  actual  achievement?  Note 
the  different  goals  of  achievement  sought  by  the  two  men. 
Could  either  have  reached  the  other's  goal?  How  far  is  the 
desire  for  public  recognition  useful  in  the  development  of  the 
individual?  In  the  progress  of  humanity? 

IV. 

THE  SUCCESSFUL  STRUGGLE  WITH  THE  PHILISTINES. 

The  occasion  for  which  Samuel  had  told  Saul  to  wait  came 
quickly.  The  Ammonites  advanced  against  the  Hebrew  town 
of  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  situated  on  the  heights  east  of  the  Jordan. 

Vaunting  their  strength  and  trusting  to  the  defenseless 
condition  of  the  Israelites,  they  threatened  to  mutilate  the 
submissive  men  of  Jabesh  by  boring  out  each  man's  right 
eye.  It  was  an  insult  well  calculated  to  stir  the  hot  indigna- 
tion of  the  Israelites,  but  in  vain  the  Gileadite  messengers 
went  from  town  to  town  until  at  last  they  came  to  Gibeah 
of  Saul.  Their  message  kindled  into  a  fierce  flame  Saul's 
smoldering  patriotism.  In  the  vivid  words  of  the  ancient 
narrative,  "The  spirit  of  Jehovah  rushed  upon  him,  when 
he  heard  these  words."  Cutting  in  pieces  the  oxen  that  had 
been  drawing  his  plow,  he  sent  them  to  the  chieftains  of  Israel 
with  the  significant  statement:  "Whoever  does  not  come  forth 
after  Saul  and  after  Samuel,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  his  oxen." 
It  is  not  strange  that  "terror  fell  upon  the  people  and  they 
rallied  as  one  man,"  for  they  realized  that  the  spirit  of  Barak 
and  Deborah  was  again  in  their  midst.  In  attacking  the 
Ammonites  Saul  employed  the  tactics  of  Gideon,  dividing  the 
people  into  three  divisions  and  making  the  attack  in  the  early 
morning  watch.  The  result  was  the  same  as  in  the  early 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  9 

battle  against  the  Midianites.  The  Ammonites  were  completely 
scattered,  and  the  Hebrews  who  followed  Saul  recognized 
that  at  last  they  had  found  a  man  worthy  to  be  their  king. 
Returning  to  the  northern  sanctuary  of  Gilgal,  the  modern 
Jiljilia,  a  few  miles  to  the  southwest  of  the  ancient  sanctuary 
of  Shiloh,  the  glories  of  which  it  has  inherited,  the  Israelites 
solemnly  elected  Saul  to  be  their  king.  The  ruins  of  an  ancient 
rock-cut  altar  and  two  sacred  trees,  as  well  as  the  shrine  of  a 
Mohammedan  saint,  now  mark  the  historic  spot.  Standing 
on  the  rocky  terrace,  surrounded  by  deep  encircling  valleys, 
one  can  readily  picture  the  assembled  Israelites  clad  in  the 
spoils  of  the  conquered  Ammonites,  proud  and  grateful  in 
the  memory  of  the  recent  victory,  fearful  of  the  Philistine 
conflict  that  still  impended,  yet  exultant  as  they  proclaimed 
their  victorious  champion  king. 

The  details  of  the  succeeding  war  with  the  Philistines  are 
recounted  with  unusual  fullness  in  the  early  narrative  of 
I  Samuel  13,  14.  With  their  wonted  energy,  the  Philistines 
quickly  invaded  southern  Ephraim  and  Benjamin  with  a 
large  army.  Its  advance  was  evidently  over  the  pass  of 
Bethhoron,  directly  eastward  across  the  central  plateau. 
By  this  movement  they  cut  off  the  Israelites  on  the  north  from 
those  on  the  south.  Many  of  the  Hebrews  laid  down  their 
arms  at  once.  Others  fled  to  the  caves.  Saul's  victorious 
army  quickly  vanished,  and  he  was  left  with  only  a  few  hundred 
men.  Meeting  no  organized  opposition,  the  Philistines  left 
a  garrison  at  the  strategic  fortress  of  Michmash,  that  guarded 
the  main  highway  from  north  to  south.  The  remainder  began 
to  plunder  the  Hebrew  towns. 

It  was  at  this  crisis  that  Saul's  valiant  son  Jonathan  turned 
an  ignominious  rout  into  victory.  Today  one  may  still  find 
along  the  little  valley  of  Michmash  the  rock-cut  entrances 
to  the  caves  in  which  the  frightened  Hebrews  probably  took 
refuge.  It  is  possible  also  to  identify  the  jutting  spurs  of 
rock,  which  stand  as  sentinels  on  the  northern  and  southern 
sides  of  the  valley,  and  to  follow  the  footsteps  of  Jonathan,  as 
he  with  his  armorbearer  crossed  the  deep  ravine  and  assailed 
the  Philistine  fortresses. 

The  son  of  the  giant  Saul  was  probably  himself  of  heroic 
stature.  It  is  not  strange  that  a  man,  who  thus  emerged 
from  the  ranks  of  the  hiding  Hebrews,  was  regarded  by  the 


10  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Philistines  as  almost  divine,  as  he  scaled  the  rocky  heights 
and  all  but  alone  faced  the  hostile  garrison.  Fear  completed 
what  his  courage  and  prowess  had  begun,  and  the  Philistines 
were  quickly  in  mad  flight.  The  panic  was  communicated 
to  the  plundering  warriors.  Soon  Saul  heard  the  commotion 
and  with  his  usual  impetuosity,  without  waiting  for  the  response 
of  the  divine  oracle  that  he  was  consulting,  he  rallied  his  followers 
in  pursuit  of  the  Philistines.  Over  the  rocky  heights  of  central 
Israel  they  drove  their  fleeing  foes,  until  by  nightfall  the 
last  surviving  Philistines  had  escaped  down  the  steep  pass 
of  Bethhoron  out  into  the  plain.  Saul  was  left  free  for  the 
moment  to  organize  his  kingdom. 

In  what  departments  of  public  life  today  are  the  qualities 
which  Saul  possessed  especially  effective?  Without  Jonathan's 
co-operation  would  Saul's  kingdom  have  collapsed?  Was 
Saul  justified  in  pursuing  the  Philistines  without  waiting  for 
the  confirmation  of  the  priestly  oracle? 

V. 

CENTRALIZATION  OP  AUTHORITY  UNDER  SAUL. 

From  beginning  to  end  Saul's  task  was  supremely  difficult. 
Throughout  his  tempestuous  reign  there  was  almost  constant 
war  with  his  hostile  neighbors.  The  well-organized  Philistines 
made  repeated  attempts  to  re-establish  their  authority  over 
the  Hebrews.  The  distance  between  upland  and  plain  was 
so  short  that  a  rapid  night  march  enabled  the  Philistines  to 
penetrate  to  the  hills  through  the  western  valleys,  attack  an 
outlying  Hebrew  village,  and  retire  laden  with  spoils  and 
followed  by  captives.  On  the  south  the  Amalekites  main- 
tained an  almost  constant  guerrilla  warfare.  On  the  east 
the  Ammonites  lost  no  opportunity  to  avenge  the  defeat  which 
they  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Saul.  Perforce  Saul's  court 
was  a  military  camp,  and  his  advisers  were  the  commanders  of 
his  army.  Israel  was  still  in  the  pioneer  stage.  The  first 
task  of  the  Hebrews  was  to  cultivate  the  soil  and  care  for 
their  flocks.  Hence  Saul  had  no  standing  army  but  was 
dependent  almost  entirely  upon  the  militia.  Under  able 
leaders  and  with  constant  training  warriors  of  this  type  de- 
veloped great  efficiency.  The  hills  and  vales  of  Palestine  were 
also  favorable  to  the  cause  of  Saul.  It  is  to  his  glory  that  in 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  11 

the  face  of  many  obstacles,  Israel's  first  great  warrior  king 
not  only  succeeded  in  organizing  the  fighting  resources  of  his 
kingdom  but  also  in  holding  his  enemies  at  bay,  even  as  David 
sang  to  the  daughters  of  Israel  in  his  lament  over  Saul: 

Who  clothed  you  daintily  in  finest  linen? 
Golden  ornaments  he  placed  on  your  garments. 

Saul's  reign  marks  the  beginning  of  permanent  centraliza- 
tion of  authority  among  the  Hebrews.  This  process  was 
necessarily  slow  and  beset  by  many  obstacles.  The  problems 
were  very  similar  to  those  that  characterized  the  beginnings 
of  the  revolutionary  period  in  American  history.  Each  tribe 
or  group  of  tribes  was  jealous  of  its  rights  and  submitted 
to  the  central  authority  only  as  it  was  compelled  by  sheer 
necessity.  There  is  no  evidence  that  more  distant  tribes,  as 
for  example  the  Asherites  and  Danites,  recognized  Saul's 
rule  any  more  than  they  did  the  obligation  in  the  days  of 
Deborah  to  join  with  their  kinsmen  against  the  Canaanites. 
Similarly  the  southern  tribes  of  Judah  and  its  allies,  the  Caleb- 
ites  and  other  Arab  tribes,  showed  themselves  very  ready 
at  the  slightest  provocation  to  withdraw  from  the  Hebrew 
confederacy.  The  term  federation  or  united  states,  rather 
than  kingdom,  is  the  more  exact  designation  of  the  political 
organization  at  the  head  of  which  stood  Saul.  At  first  he 
was  elected  simply  by  the  common  consent  of  the  warriors 
who  had  followed  him  in  the  campaign  against  the  Ammonites. 
Later  other  tribes,  realizing  their  need  of  the  protection  which 
his  standard  afforded,  joined  the  federation.  Saul's  authority, 
therefore,  depended  on  the  one  hand  on  his  personal  ability 
and  achievement  and  on  the  other  on  the  consent  of  those 
governed.  In  many  ways  the  closest  modern  analogy  is  the 
American  federation  (1776  to  1789)  with  its  distribution  of 
authority  between  the  weak  federal  and  the  strong  state  govern- 
ments. 

Saul  does  not  appear  to  have  taken  any  steps  to  extend  his 
power  or  to  organize  his  kingdom.  His  capital  was  his  native 
town  of  Gibeah.  His  court  was  probably  either  held  in  his 
home  or,  as  in  one  memorable  instance,  out  of  doors  beneath 
the  tamarisk  tree  near  the  high  place.  His  own  kinsman 
Abner  was  his  prime  minister,  as  well  as  general.  Judicial 
cases  were  doubtless  referred  to  the  king,  but  the  primary  and 


12  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

apparently  almost  the  sole  aim  of  the  Hebrew  federation  was 
military  defense.  Undoubtedly  the  different  tribes  sent 
presents  to  their  chief,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  Saul 
instituted  a  regular  system  of  taxation.  While  this  type  of 
organization  lacked  coherence,  it  possessed  the  virtue  of  being 
adjusted  to  existing  conditions  and  of  preserving  Israel's 
priceless  democratic  ideals.  In  the  days  of  Saul  and  his 
successors  democratic  precedents  were  established  which 
kings  like  Solomon  and  Ahab  were  powerless  permanently  to 
overthrow.  Israel,  therefore,  from  the  beginnings  of  its 
national  life,  illustrated  to  all  the  world  the  characteristics, 
strong  and  weak,  of  a  rule  of  the  people  by  the  people  for  the 
people. 

Picture  in  imagination  what  a  Philistine  attack  meant  to 
the  inhabitants  of  an  outlying  Hebrew  town.  What  did  Saul 
do  for  the  Hebrew  people?  Why  were  the  Hebrews  in  SauPs 
day  so  averse  to  recognizing  centralized  authority? 

VI. 
THE  BALANCE  BETWEEN  FEDERAL  AND  LOCAL  AUTHORITY. 

John  Fiske,  in  one  of  his  admirable  books,  puts  forward  as 
one  of  the  three  most  important  American  political  ideas, 
that  of  federation.  It  is  perhaps  true,  as  Fiske  intimates,  that 
in  the  American  Union  we  find  first  the  example,  on  a  great  scale, 
of  the  advantages  of  a  federal  system  of  government.  But, 
after  all,  did  not  Israel  in  its  early  history  give  us  in  this  respect, 
as  in  so  many  others,  the  fundamental  principles? 

The  essential  advantage  of  federation,  as  a  form  of  political 
organization,  is  that  it  maintains  a  local  self-government  in 
which  each  man  may  take  his  part  in  public  affairs  and  thereby 
may  get  a  real  training  as  a  political  thinker  and  doer,  while, 
on  all  great  questions  touching  international  affairs  or  matters 
reaching  in  their  influence  far  beyond  the  neighborhood  which 
he  knows,  he  delegates  his  power  to  a  representative,  in  order 
thereby  to  secure  unity  of  action.  Only  through  federation 
can  we  have  thus  combined  the  advantages  of  a  strongly  cen- 
tralized government  with  those  of  a  democracy  which  trains 
the  individual. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Hebrew  kingdom  under  Saul  the 
need  for  centralization  came  largely  from  war  and  dealings 


The  Necessity  of  Political  Unity  13 

with  the  surrounding  tribes  and  nations.  There  was  little 
centralization  of  government,  although  doubtless  there  were 
certain  common  rules  and  at  times  there  were  levies  of  troops, 
if  not  of  taxes,  upon  the  different  tribes.  Probably,  except  in 
times  of  war,  the  king  did  not  deal  with  the  individual  members 
of  a  tribe,  as  does  our  central  government  in  collecting  federal 
taxes,  but  his  suggestions  and  commands  went  to  the  elders  of 
the  separate  tribes.  In  individual  instances,  as  when  he 
slaughtered  the  priests  of  Nob,  his  personal  authority  was 
recognized,  but  this  control  was,  after  all,  rather  the  discipline 
of  a  military  leader  than  the  authority  of  a  ruling  king.  Later, 
as  we  know,  David  and  Solomon  went  much  farther  toward 
centralization,  taking  a  census,  levying  taxes,  interfering 
directly  with  local  affairs.  Although  the  system  was  never 
fully  worked  out,  the  rule  under  Solomon  became  despotic 
and  in  consequence  the  desire  for  democracy,  or  at  any  rate 
for  local  recognition  and  hence  for  the  federal  type  of  rule, 
brought  about  eventually  the  fall  of  the  united  kingdom. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  the  unifying  force  that  brought 
about  unity  under  Saul  was  the  need  of  self-defense  against 
warlike  aggression.  The  chief  advantage  of  unity  was  greater 
power  in  war.  The  unifying  sentiment,  however,  that  made 
this  unity  possible  then,  as  it  did  from  time  to  time,  both  in 
earlier  and  later  days,  was  religion,  the  common  worship  of 
Jehovah.  Until  long  after  the  days  of  Saul  each  tribe  had 
still  its  own  shrine,  each  family,  probably,  its  own  household 
god.  But  there  was,  after  all,  the  universal  worship  of  Jehovah 
and  the  universal  belief  that  the  Israelites  were  the  chosen 
people  of  the  most  powerful  God  and  that  their  prosperity 
was  dependent  upon  loyalty  to  him.  Nowhere  else  in  history 
do  we  find  so  clearly  imprinted  upon  its  pages  the  unifying 
power  of  a  common  religious  belief,  and  nowhere  else  is  so 
apparent  the  uplifting,  vivifying  and  revivifying  power  of 
pure  religious  feeling. 

Questions  for  Further  Consideration. 

What  is  the  centralizing  force  which  keeps  together  the  separate  States 
of  the  American  Union? 

Mention  ten  acts  commonly  performed  by  ordinary  American  citizens. 
How  many  of  these  are  under  the  protection  or  control  of  laws  passed 
by  our  State  governments?  How  many  under  the  federal  government? 
Under  which  are  our  regulations  regarding  marriage?  Business  con- 
tracts? Crimes?  Customs  duties?  The  post  office? 


14  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Is  it  more  important  for  a  father,  with  growing  children,  to  have  the 
school  teacher  in  his  home  town  a  person  of  high  character  and  attainments, 
or  to  have  such  characteristics  in  the  President  of  the  United  States?  Give 
your  reasons. 

Why  are  we  ordinarily  more  interested  in  the  selection  of  the  President 
than  in  that  of  a  school  teacher? 

Is  there  any  person  or  group  of  persons  in  the  United  States  today 
performing  the  political  functions  of  the  prophet  Samuel,  especially  those 
of  selecting  the  chief  ruler  and  furnishing  the  leading  political  ideas?  How 
far  is  it  today  in  the  power  of  a  private  citizen  of  high  ability  and  character 
to  play  the  role  of  that  ancient  Hebrew  prophet?  Have  any  of  our  ex- 
Presidents  occupied  such  a  position?  Washington,  Cleveland,  Roosevelt, 
Taft? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  The  Literary  Structure  and  History  of  the  Books  of  Samuel.     Kent, 
Israel's  Historical  and  Biographical  Narratives,  pp.  10-14. 

(2)  Study    and    criticize   Alexander    Hamilton's   plans   regarding   the 
centralization  of  federal  power  in  the  United  States.    Croly,  Promise  of 
American  Life,  Chap,  II;  Lodge,  Alexander  Hamilton, 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  A  GREAT  LEADER. 

DAVID'S  TRAINING  FOB  THE  KINGSHIP. — I  Sam.  16:1 — 18:30; 

20—30. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  84-87,  92-114. 
Croly,  Promise  of  American  Life,  cf.  Index:  Lincoln,  Roosevelt,  Bryan. 
Lowell,  Public  Opinion,  Chaps.  Ill,  IV. 

Thereupon  one  of  the  young  men  answered  and  said,  Behold,  I  have 
seen  a  son  of  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite  who  is  skillful  in  playing  and  a  valiant 
man,  a  soldier,  judicious  in  speech,  a  man  of  good  appearance,  and  Jehovah 
is  with  him. — 1  Sam.  16: 18. 

Then  Abishai  said  to  David,  God  has  delivered  your  enemy  into  your 
hand  today.  Now  therefore  let  me  smite  him  with  his  spear  to  the  earth 
at  one  stroke,  and  I  will  not  need  to  smite  him  twice!  But  David  said 
to  Abishai,  Destroy  him  not;  for  who  can  lay  his  hand  upon  Jehovah's 
anointed  and  be  innocent? — /  Sam.  26: 8,  9. 
Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth. — Heb.  12:  6. 

'Tis  much  he  dares; 

And,  to  that  dauntless  temper  of  his  mind, 
He  hath  a  wisdom  that  doth  guide  his  valor 
To  act  in  safety. — Shakespeare. 
The  future  works  out  great  men's  destinies; 
The  present  is  enough  for  common  souls, 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  15 

Who,  never  looking  forward,  are  indeed 
Mere  clay  wherein  the  footprints  of  their  age 
Are  petrified  forever. — Lowell. 

That  each  thing,  both  in  small  and  great,  fulfilleth  a  task  which  destiny 
hath  set  down. — Hippocrates. 

I. 

DAVID'S  PERSONAL  CHARM. 

In  all  the  history  of  art  probably  no  better  example  can  be 
found  of  youthful  beauty  and  strength,  combined  with  intelli- 
gence, alertness  and  skill,  than  the  wonderful  statue  of  David 
by  Michael  Angelo  in  the  City  of  Florence.  It  represents  David 
standing  erect  and  watchful  with  his  sling  in  his  hand,  just 
as  he  is  about  to  engage  in  conflict  with  the  giant  Goliath. 
Perhaps  no  other  sculptor  has  ever  equalled  Michael  Angelo 
in  the  ability  to  give  life-like  character  to  his  artistic  creations. 
But  there  also  has  rarely  been  a  subject  so  well  adapted  to  the 
depiction  of  youthful  beauty,  heroism,  and  skill  as  David 
at  this  initial  moment  in  his  public  career.  Before  consider- 
ing his  religious  experiences  it  is  well  to  note  his  personal 
characteristics  and  his  training. 

All  the  accounts  of  David's  life  and  activities  show  that  he 
was  a  young  man  of  unusual  charm.  He  was  a  skilled  warrior, 
even  when  he  was  introduced  to  Saul's  court,  for  he  very  soon 
became  the  king's  armorbearer  and  before  long  the  leader  of 
his  warriors  in  their  most  desperate  forays.  The  fact  that  he 
had  been  first  brought  to  Saul's  court  as  a  musician  in  order 
to  quiet  the  nerves  of  the  king  when  he  was  ill,  by  his  skillful 
playing  on  the  lyre,  proves  his  pre-eminence  in  that  art.  We 
know  also  that  he  must  have  been  a  youth  of  unusual  facility 
in  conversation  and  of  pleasing  address.  His  popularity  among 
all  classes  at  the  court,  not  only  with  warriors,  but  also  with 
the  malcontents  of  every  kind,  who  joined  him  when  he  later 
left  the  court,  and  with  Jonathan,  the  king's  son,  demonstrates 
this  fact.  Moreover,  he  had  been  at  the  court  but  a  short 
time  when  the  younger  daughter  of  King  Saul,  Michal,  declared 
her  love  for  him  and  her  wish  to  become  his  wife.  His  relations 
with  Saul  and  Jonathan  reveal  a  man  of  most  unusual  tact; 
his  experiences  among  the  Philistines  show  not  only  his  bravery 
in  war  but  later,  as  we  shall  see,  his  diplomatic  skill  in  dealing 
with  those  who  might  well  have  been  the  cause  of  his  final 


16  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

ruin.  His  treatment  of  Saul,  when  the  king  later  came  into 
his  power,  illustrates  the  generosity  of  his  spirit  and  the  kindli- 
ness of  his  disposition,  as  well  as  his  reverential  attitude  toward 
the  man  who,  he  felt,  had  been  chosen  as  the  Lord's  anointed 
to  be  the  king  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  his  generous,  eloquent 
words  in  his  poetic  lament  over  the  death  of  Saul  were  per- 
fectly sincere,  and  that  he  was  lamenting  not  merely  his  friend 
Jonathan,  but  also  the  king  who  had  been  his  enemy  and  who 
had  sought  his  life,  but  whom,  nevertheless,  he  looked  upon 
as  the  great  leader  of  his  people. 

With  his  discriminating  judgment  of  men  David  was  able 
to  appreciate  genuinely  the  bravery  and  the  unselfishness  that 
Saul  revealed  in  many  of  his  acts  and  to  excuse  his  mad  im- 
pulsiveness when  he  felt  that  his  position  as  king  was  threatened 
by  the  popularity  of  his  young  son-in-law,  who  he  feared  would 
become  his  rival. 

David's  far-sighted  diplomatic  skill  is  shown  in  the  way  in 
which  he  treated  Saul's  son  and  successor,  Ishbaal,  after  the 
death  of  Saul;  in  the  way  in  which  he  punished  with  death 
the  slayers  of  the  young  king  who  had  been  holding  part  of 
the  kingdom  that  he  hoped  later  to  make  his  own,  and  by  the 
acts  of  tact  and  judgment  by  which  he  brought  together 
the  different  separated  factions  of  the  Hebrew  people  into 
one  great  kingdom.  Nowhere  else  in  ancient  history  do  we 
find  a  better  example  of  real  personal  greatness.  He  was  a 
man  of  remarkable  intelligence,  he  was  a  poet  of  the  first  rank,  a 
musician  of  unusual  skill,  a  warrior  of  invincible  courage  and 
ability,  a  diplomat  of  the  first  order  and  a  statesman  with 
such  far-reaching  plans  that  from  a  scattered  group  of  jealous 
tribes  and  in  a  territory  that  was  distinctly  unfavorable  to 
political  unity,  he  was  able  to  weld  together  one  of  the  great 
nations  of  his  day.  Not  merely  did  circumstances  favor  his 
purpose.  His  own  personal  qualities,  more  than  all  other 
forces,  enabled  him  to  achieve  this  remarkable  success  which 
has  made  him  since  that  far-off  day  one  of  the  few  greatest 
heroes  of  mankind. 

In  these  days  of  scientific  study  people  are  inclined  to  think 
that  the  elements  determining  success  are  not  primarily  the 
individuality  of  a  person  but  external  circumstances.  Any 
one,  however,  who  has  looked  carefully  into  the  forces  that 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  17 

determine  success  in  public  life  can  see  that  as  the  years  and 
centuries  go  by,  personality  is  a  more,  rather  than  a  less,  im- 
portant factor  in  deciding  the  course  of  the  world's  history. 
It  is  true  that  physical  skill  and  power,  perhaps,  signify  less; 
possibly  even  mental  strength  means  no  more  than  in  the 
earlier  days;  but  beyond  a  doubt  moral  uprightness  counts 
continually  more  and  more  with  each  succeeding  generation. 
The  increasing  complexity  of  modern  society  makes  it  all  the 
more  essential  that  in  our  dealings  one  with  the  other,  we 
can  rely  absolutely  upon  the  word  and  upon  the  acts  of  the 
men  with  whom  we  are  associated.  There  can  be  no  successful 
statesman,  nor  business  man  of  the  larger  type,  unless  his 
personal  character  is  such  that  he  can  win  the  confidence  of 
his  fellowmen. 

What  were  some  of  the  personal  characteristics  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  that  contributed  to  his  success  (1)  as  a  solclier? 
(2)  as  a  statesman?  What  were  some  of  his  personal  qualities 
that  contributed  to  his  failure  in  both  these  roles?  How  much 
of  the  success  or  failure  of  the  teachers  under  whom  you  studied 
at  different  periods  depended  upon  their  personality?  Men- 
tion some  of  the  personal  qualities  of  a  man  that  contribute 
to  his  success  in  business  or  in  politics,  or  mention  the  qualities 
of  a  woman  that  are  in  the  end  largely  contributory  to  her 
success  in  home  life,  in  society,  or  in  business. 

II. 
DAVID'S  TRAINING  IN  THE  COURT  OF  SAUL. 

The  remarkable  success  of  David,  as  leader  of  his  people, 
as  king,  and  as  the  man  who  consolidated  the  different  tribes 
into  one  great  kingdom,  was  due  very  largely  to  the  training 
that  he  received  at  the  court  of  Saul. 

Two  different  accounts  are  given  of  the  way  in  which  he 
first  came  to  court.  The  earliest,  and  probably  on  the  whole 
the  most  trustworthy,  is  that  which  brings  him  first  to  the 
attention  of  the  court  attendants  as  a  skillful  musician  whose 
playing  upon  the  lyre  might  soothe  the  king  when  he  was 
seized  with  one  of  his  strange  attacks.  The  king  was  probably 
a  high-strung  man  who,  on  account  of  his  failure  to  unite  all 
the  varied  elements  in  his  kingdom,  and  the  isolation  which 
was  his  lot  as  king  and  also,  probably  on  account  of  some 


18  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

natural  or  inherited  tendency,  was  afflicted  with  a  severe 
nervous  malady.  Some  medical  authorities  consider  it  epilepsy, 
others  acute  melancholia.  But  whatever  the  disease  may  have 
been,  he  was  subject  to  attacks  under  the  influence  of  which 
he  became  morose  and  jealous  and  inclined  to  turn  upon  those 
about  him.  This  disastrous  tendency  was  manifested  not 
only  in  the  case  of  David,  but  also  in  that  of  the  priests  of 
Nob  when  he  mistakenly  thought  it  possible  that  they  had 
been  conspiring  with  David  against  him. 

Whatever  the  malady  may  have  been,  it  seems  perfectly 
clear  that  David,  even  at  his  first  appearance  in  Saul's  court, 
was  not  the  stripling  shepherd  who  was  merely  keeping  his 
sheep  in  the  fields,  as  is  indicated  in  the  later  account,  but 
that  he  already  had  won  a  reputation  on  the  battlefield  and  was 
in  the  prime  of  his  youth.  His  close  personal  relationship 
with  Saul  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  win  the  king's  affection. 
The  king's  delight  in  him  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  soon 
made  him  his  armorbearer.  From  his  daily  association  with 
Saul,  hearing  the  cases  that  came  before  the  king  to  judge,  and 
participating  in  all  his  intimate  domestic  life  (for  we  know  that 
he  sat  at  the  king's  table),  he  was  in  a  position  to  see  how  the 
affairs  of  state  were  managed. 

Of  course  at  this  time  Saul  was  little  more  than  the  leader 
of  the  tribes  in  time  of  war.  David  had,  nevertheless,  from 
this  association,  the  opportunity  to  learn  all  that  could  be 
learned  from  probably  the  most  skillful  warrior  of  his  race, 
and  thus  to  acquire  a  kind  of  training  that  was  to  prove  of 
great  importance  in  the  near  future.  As  we  have  seen,  this 
close  relationship,  combined  with  David's  personal  qualities, 
gave  him  also  the  opportunity  of  becoming  a  close  friend  of  the 
king's  son  Jonathan — a  man  of  the  noblest  type — an  as- 
sociation that  must  have  been  in  many  ways  of  the  greatest 
benefit. 

When,  at  the  time  of  the  attacks  of  the  Philistines,  the 
giant  Goliath  called  for  a  champion  from  the  ranks  of  the 
Hebrews  and  David  volunteered,  he  doubtless  felt  that  from 
Ms  position  as  armorbearer  and  as  leader  of  the  king's  troops 
it  was  fitting  that  he  should  be  the  volunteer.  Moreover,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  David  was  a  far-sighted  youth,  and  he 
must  have  recognized  that  a  victory  over  the  champion  of 
the  Philistines  would  aid  him  greatly  in  his  advancement  at 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  19 

court.  Such  a  conflict,  of  course,  required  bravery,  and 
David's  courage  has  never  been  questioned;  but,  as  we  know 
from  the  account  given  of  the  conflict,  he  was  never  at  any 
time  in  great  personal  danger.  The  giant  Goliath  had  equipped 
himself  for  a  hand-to-hand  conflict  with  spear  and  sword. 
Saul  had  offered  to  fit  out  David  with  the  same  weapons, 
but  David  then  was  not  accustomed  to  that  mode  of  fighting. 
He  had  been  trained  as  a  shepherd.  He  had  fought  lions 
and  bears  with  sling  and  bow  and  club,  and  he  preferred  to 
meet  his  warrior  antagonist  with  these  familiar  weapons. 
The  event  showed  that  through  his  skill  with  the  sling  he 
was  easily  the  conqueror,  and  that  with  little  personal  risk 
to  himself.  In  the  flight  of  the  Philistines  that  followed,  as 
they  were  chased  by  the  Israelites,  David  doubtless  came  into 
hand-to-hand  conflict  many  times  over  with  his  foes,  and  his 
success  as  warrior  led  the  maidens  of  Israel  to  sing  his  praises 
even  more  loudly  than  they  sang  those  of  their  great  king  and 
chieftain  Saul: 

Saul  has  slain  his  thousands, 
But  David  his  ten  thousands. 

Naturally  the  popularity  of  this  rising  warrior  led  King  Saul, 
who  was  after  all  merely  a  military  king,  not  only  to  feel 
jealous  of  David,  but  also  to  question  whether  David  might 
not  conspire  against  him  and  become  his  successor.  In  those 
days  conspiracy  against  the  ruler  was  common.  Assassination 
was  a  not  unusual  method  of  removing  a  rival.  And  Saul, 
judging  David,  not  by  the  generous  spirit  that  he  had  seen, 
but  by  the  customs  of  his  day  and  by  what  had  befallen  many 
another  ruler,  might  well  have  had  good  excuse  for  feeling 
that  it  was  desirable  that  David  be  put  out  of  the  way. 

When  his  daughter  Michal  expressed  her  desire  to  marry 
David,  the  king,  with  apparent  generosity  toward  a  poor 
young  man,  said  that  he  would  not  ask  a  money  marriage 
portion  but  rather  the  foreskins  of  one  hundred  Philistines, 
thinking  that  in  the  attempt  to  secure  them  by  the  slaughter 
of  his  enemies  David  would  probably  lose  his  life.  David's 
popularity,  however,  as  a  soldier  soon  enabled  him  to  gather 
about  him  a  fearless  band  of  followers,  so  that  this  bloody 
marriage  portion  was  quickly  secured,  and  he  became  the  king's 
son-in-law.  This  relationship  gave  him  the  social  position 


20  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

that  fitted  him  for  assuming  the  responsibilities  which  came 
in  later  years.  It  is  probable  that  he  did  not  as  yet  en- 
tertain the  ambition  to  become  Saul's  successor.  Jonathan 
was  his  dearest  friend  and  the  natural  heir  to  the  throne. 
All  that  David  looked  forward  to  at  that  time  was  to  become 
the  king's  right-hand  adviser  and  best  friend  and  to  prove 
himself  a  loyal  servant  of  Jehovah  by  rendering  great  service 
to  his  people;  for,  from  the  time  of  his  conflict  with  Goliath 
to  the  end  of  his  life,  we  find  religious  zeal  and  reverence  for 
Jehovah  a  prominent  trait  in  David's  character. 

Here  then  at  the  court  of  Saul  we  find  David  securing  the 
training  for  his  later  success.  He  was  instructed  in  the  best 
that  could  be  taught  in  the  way  of  military  skill,  both  in  personal 
conflict  and  in  commanding  troops;  he  learned  the  ways  of 
the  court  and  the  most  effective  methods  of  dealing  with 
court  officials.  He  saw  and  learned  to  avoid  the  many  mis- 
takes made  by  the  impulsive  Saul,  and  realized  how  necessary 
it  is  to  have  cool  judgment  and  tact  in  dealing  with  the  con- 
flicting elements  that  surround  every  court.  He  was  likewise 
making  friends  of  the  various  military  leaders  and  of  the  heads 
of  the  different  tribes,  as  he  came  in  contact  with  them  in  their 
service  at  court.  Perhaps  most  of  all  his  close  friendship  with 
Jonathan  was  giving  him  higher  and  nobler  ideas  of  not  only 
bravery  and  military  skill,  but  of  personal  generosity,  of  love 
for  the  noble  and  the  true,  and  the  desire  to  prove  faithful 
in  all  engagements.  There  is,  perhaps,  no  character  in  Biblical 
story  that  stands  forth  more  prominently  than  Jonathan  as 
the  ideal  of  manly  virtue.  When  he  might  well  have  been 
jealous  of  the  rising  David,  we  see  no  signs  of  jealousy,  but 
throughout  his  life  only  a  noble,  generous  spirit,  combined 
with  bravery  and  skill  of  the  highest  type.  From  him,  as 
well  as  from  the  others  with  whom  he  was  associated,  David  was 
acquiring  the  trained  nature  which  later  was  to  prove  of  so 
great  advantage. 

How  far  does  a  pleasing  personality  contribute  to  a  man's 
success?  Good  manners?  Is  there  a  distinction  between 
good  manners  and  courtesy?  Is  it  right  and  wise  to  strive 
for  popularity?  What  qualities  or  acts  insure  genuine  popu- 
larity? How  far  and  in  what  ways  did  David's  religious  senti- 
ments contribute  to  his  success? 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  21 

III. 
DAVID  AS  A  FUGITIVE  IN  THE  WILDERNESS. 

Saul's  half-insane  jealousy  led  him  to  adopt  open  measures 
to  take  David's  life.  At  first,  in  a  fit  of  anger,  he  attempted 
to  pin  him  to  the  wall  with  his  javelin,  but  David  escaped. 
Then  the  king  made  a  vain  attempt  to  capture  David  in  his 
house,  but  Michal  deceived  the  royal  messengers.  Afterward 
Saul  thought  that  at  the  monthly  feast  he  would  have  an 
opportunity  of  securing  David's  assassination,  or  probably  of 
killing  him  with  his  own  hand.  But  David,  with  his  native 
insight  into  character,  and  probably  also  prompted  by  the 
warnings  of  his  friends  at  court,  was  convinced  of  Saul's  per- 
sistent hostility.  Guided  eventually  by  the  advice  of  his 
friend  Jonathan,  he  left  the  court  and  went  into  the  wilderness 
to  remain  until  it  was  safe  for  him  to  return,  whenever  condi- 
tions were  favorable. 

It  was  natural  that  as  a  fugitive  he  should  first  turn  his 
steps  southward  toward  his  own  kinsmen  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
As  he  was  fleeing  thither,  he  stopped  with  the  priests  at  the 
little  village  of  Nob,  a  short  distance  north  of  Jebus.  When 
they  inquired  regarding  his  mission,  he  deceived  them,  pre- 
tending that  he  was  on  some  special  mission  for  the  king; 
and  he  succeeded  in  persuading  them  to  give  him  and  his 
followers  some  of  the  show  bread,  although  that  was  ordinarily 
eaten  only  by  priests.  Above  all  he  secured  there  the  sword 
of  Goliath  which  he  had  earlier  won  from  that  Philistine 
champion.  Afterward,  as  we  know,  when  Saul  learned  that 
David  had  been  welcomed  by  Ahimelech,  the  chief  of  the 
priests,  he  summoned  them,  and,  contrary  to  all  the  dictates 
of  humanity  and  justice,  he  had  them  slain  by  the  hand  of 
Doeg  the  Edomite,  the  man  who  had  betrayed  them. 

David  did  not  leave  the  Hebrew  kingdom  entirely,  but  took 
up  a  position  at  Adullam,  a  rocky  region  filled  with  caves  on 
the  western  borders  of  the  land  next  to  the  Philistines,  where 
he  could  easily  protect  himself  from  ^attack  and  where  also 
in  case  of  need  he  could  turn  to  the  Philistines  to  whom,  as 
enemies  of  Saul,  he  felt  that  he  could  go,  should  it  prove 
necessary. 

There  gathered  about  him,  as  might  be  expected,  not  merely 
some  of  his  own  friends  and  kinsmen,  whose  hearts  he  had 


22  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

won  when  at  the  court  of  the  king,  but  also,  as  the  narrative 
tells  us,  "every  one  who  was  in  distress  and  every  one  who  was 
in  debt  and  every  one  who  was  embittered  gathered  about 
him  and  he  became  their  leader,  and  there  were  with  him  about 
four  hundred  men."  It  is  usually  the  case  that  in  any  such 
circumstances  as  those  of  David,  a  fugitive  leader  is  followed 
by  the  criminals  and  outcasts  or  by  those  who  do  not  wish  to 
remain  by  the  court.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  evidence  of 
his  power  of  leadership.  It  also  gave  him  an  opportunity 
to  acquire  skill  in  dealing  with  all  classes  of  men.  That  he 
was  successful  we  know. 

Soon  after  he  had  found  refuge  among  the  western  head- 
lands of  Judah,  word  came  to  him  that  the  old  enemies  of 
the  Israelites,  the  Philistines,  had  attacked  a  village,  Keilah, 
and  were  robbing  the  threshing  floors  and  carrying  off  the  people. 
David  was  still  a  Hebrew.  He  retained  all  his  natural  heredi- 
tary hatred  of  the  Philistines.  Inquiring  of  Jehovah  in  the 
usual  manner  whether  he  should  attack  them  or  not,  he  went 
down,  fought  them,  drove  away  their  cattle,  slew  many  of 
them  and  thus  delivered  the  inhabitants  of  Keilah. 

When  Saul  heard  that  David  was  in  this  walled  town,  he 
thought  it  was  a  good  opportunity  to  surround  and  conquer 
him.  So  he  summoned  his  people  to  war  and  went  down 
against  him.  David,  however,  was  watchful,  expecting  attack, 
and  in  consequence  being  forewarned,  he  left  Keilah,  betook 
himself  into  the  hill  country  to  the  south  of  Judah,  and  waited 
there.  When  Saul  encamped  in  the  hill  country  of  Hachilah 
near  him,  David  at  night  stealthily  approached  Saul's  camp. 
Finding  him,  his  chief  guard  Abner,  and  all  his  men  asleep, 
David,  followed  by  one  of  his  intimate  bodyguards,  Abishai, 
went  into  Saul's  camp.  A  tempting  opportunity  to  kill  the 
king  and  rid  himself  of  his  enemy  was  thus  offered,  and  Abishai 
urged  that  this  be  done  at  once.  But  David's  sense  of  justice, 
his  spirit,  which  was  too  noble  to  kill  an  enemy  unawares, 
his  religion,  which  led  him  to  respect  the  person  of  the  Lord's 
anointed  and,  possibly,  also  the  far-sighted  statesmanship 
which  led  him  to  know  that,  if  he  were  to  kill  Saul  in  these 
circumstances,  he  would  arouse  perhaps  forever  the  hostility 
of  the  northern  tribes  and  especially  of  Benjamin  the  tribe  of 
Saul,  led  him  to  stay  his  hand.  He,  therefore,  took  Saul's 
spear  and  the  jug  of  water  by  his  head,  went  to  a  neighboring 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  23 

hillside,  then  called  out  to  Abner,  the  chief  of  Saul's  guard, 
and  gibed  him  for  not  having  kept  better  watch.  When 
Saul  heard  the  well-known  voice  that  had  so  often  eased  his 
malady,  and  when  he  realized  that  his  life  had  been  spared, 
his  own  generous  spirit  led  him  to  speak  contritely  to  David, 
to  call  him  his  son  and  to  ask  that  he  return  and  be  again  on 
friendly  terms.  Knowing,  however,  the  king's  real  temper,  and 
feeling  that,  although  his  heart  was  softened  then  by  this  act 
of  mercy,  he  would  turn  again,  David  thought  it  best  not  to 
trust  him.  So,  speaking  friendly  words,  he  went  on  to  a  safer 
place  in  the  wilderness. 

His  life  in  the  wilderness  was,  of  course,  that  of  an  outlaw 
of  his  day,  but  an  outlaw  of  the  generous,  noble  type  of  which 
we  sometimes  read  in  stories.  He  protected  the  flocks  and 
herds  of  the  Hebrew  shepherds  against  the  attack  of  other 
marauders.  He  kept  his  men  about  him  and  trained  himself 
in  the  arts  of  war  by  attacking  the  Amalekites  and  the  other 
hostile  tribes  to  the  south,  so  that  he  could  support  his  men, 
distribute  the  plunder  among  them,  and  still  retain  the  friend- 
ship of  the  southern  tribes  and  of  the  law-abiding  people  of 
his  district. 

One  noteworthy  case  is  preserved  in  the  biblical  account. 
Nabal,  a  wealthy  man  of  the  South  Country  whose  flocks 
and  herds  David  had  protected  throughout  the  grazing  season, 
refused  at  the  feast  of  the  sheep  shearing  to  give  him  and 
his  young  men  the  welcome  and  plentiful  supplies  that, 
according  to  the  well-known  customs  of  the  day,  were  richly 
their  due. 

Not  only  did  he  refuse,  but  his  refusal  was  couched  in  terms 
that,  to  David,  seemed  insulting.  With  the  hot  temper  of 
youth,  he  was  about  to  take  revenge  upon  Nabal  by  killing 
him  and  his  people  and  by  seizing  all  his  property.  Nabal's 
wife  Abigail,  however,  was  a  person  of  tact  and  judgment,  as 
well  as  a  woman  of  great  beauty  and  personal  charm.  Realizing 
at  once  the  risk  that  her  husband  was  taking,  she  set  forth 
with  her  servants,  bearing  magnificent  presents  from  the  herd 
and  fruits  to  satisfy  the  hunger  of  David's  men.  When 
she  met  him,  she  bowed  to  the  earth  and  in  terms  most  flatter- 
ing to  the  young  chieftain  she  admitted  that  her  husband  was 
at  fault,  offered  to  David  the  presents,  warned  him  that  he 
ought  not  to  shed  the  blood  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  led 


24  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

him  to  rejoice  that  she  had  saved  him  from  the  commission 
of  so  great  a  crime. 

David  was  at  once  touched  by  the  suggestion,  accepted  the 
presents,  and  agreed  not  to  harm  Nabal.  Shortly  afterward, 
on  the  sudden  death  of  Nabal,  which  came,  according  to  the 
views  of  the  time  as  a  divine  punishment  for  his  meanness  and 
violation  of  the  sacred  laws  of  hospitality,  David  sought  the 
hand  of  the  beautiful  and  tactful  Abigail  in  marriage. 

After  David's  expulsion  from  the  court  of  Saul,  the  king 
had  given  his  wife  Michal  to  another  man.  David  had  later 
married  Ahinoam,  a  Jezreelitess.  After  his  marriage  to  Abigail 
he  had  two  wives  living  with  him,  and  later  he  recovered 
Michal,  after  the  death  of  Saul. 

Among  the  Hebrews  of  that  day  it  was  not  customary  for 
the  ordinary  poor  man  to  have  more  than  one  wife.  The 
kings  and  rulers,  however,  in  many  cases  had  several  wives, 
and  often  as  in  the  case  of  Solomon,  numerous  concubines. 

Polygamy  was  an  inheritance  from  Israel's  nomadic  period. 
It  had  been  retained  in  the  case  of  tribal  chieftains  and  kings, 
because  it  was  a  natural  and  easy  way  to  cement  close  relation- 
ship between  tribes  and  nations.  When  treaties  of  peace  and 
friendship  were  made,  in  the  past,  as  well  as  today,  they  were 
frequently  sealed  by  a  marriage  between  the  relatives  of  the 
heads  of  the  tribes  or  the  nations  making  the  treaty.  David 
by  his  marriage  with  Abigail  extended  his  influence  among 
the  Calebites,  one  of  the  strongest  of  the  southern  tribes. 
By  this  marriage  and  by  the  care  which  he  had  taken  of  the 
flocks  and  herds  of  the  southern  tribes  while  an  outlaw,  he 
was  laying  the  foundations  for  his  future  popularity. 

Under  what  social  conditions  has  polygamy  usually  appeared? 
Was  it  justified  in  the  case  of  David?  Was  he  justified  in 
plundering  hostile  tribes,  while  protecting  the  flocks  of  friendly 
tribes?  Can  we  excuse  Saul  for  his  brutal  attack  on  David? 
Can  we  excuse  David  for  his  deception  of  Ahimelech?  Do 
you  find  in  your  study  of  David's  life  that  all  his  acts  of  de- 
ception were  prompted  by  what  seemed  to  him  military  neces- 
sity? Does  military  necessity  always  or  ever  justify  deception? 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  25 

IV. 
DAVID  AMONG  THE  PHILISTINES. 

The  constant  efforts  which  Saul  made  to  destroy  David 
and  the  inadequacy  of  the  food  supply  among  the  barren  rock 
hills  of  the  South  Country,  finally  led  the  outlaw  leader  to 
turn  his  back  upon  the  land  of  Israel  and  to  go  over  to  the 
Philistines.  Taking  with  him  the  six  hundred  men  who  were 
his  chosen  followers,  he  went  to  Achish,  the  king  of  Gath, 
and  he  dwelt  there  with  his  two  wives  and  with  all  his  followers. 
As  soon  as  Saul  learned  that  David  had  gone  to  Gath  he  no 
longer  attempted  to  follow  him,  apparently  deciding  that 
he  was  himself  safe  from  further  molestation. 

In  thus  going  over  to  the  Philistines,  David  was  not  acting 
contrary  to  the  custom  of  that  time.  It  was  frequently  the 
case  that  refugees  of  one  tribe  fled  to  another.  The  law  of 
hospitality,  which  obtained  everywhere,  protected  the  stranger, 
even  though  he  came  from  a  hostile  tribe.  The  Philistines, 
of  course,  had  known  David  as  one  of  the  ablest  warriors  who 
had  fought  against  them,  and  David  himself  from  his  military 
experiences  had  great  respect  for  many  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Philistines.  In  consequence,  it  was  by  no  means  strange 
that  when  he  became  a  refugee,  he  turned  to  them  for  safety. 
Nor  was  it  in  the  least  unnatural  that  they,  knowing  that 
he  was  an  outlaw  from  his  own  country,  should  receive  him 
with  open  arms  and  be  glad  to  welcome  him  as  an  ally  and 
friend.  As  soon  as  David's  position  with  the  king  of  Gath 
seemed  assured,  he  asked  for  permission  to  dwell  in  one  of  the 
towns  in  the  open  country  instead  of  remaining  in  the  royal 
city  with  the  king.  He  was,  therefore,  assigned  to  the  town 
of  Ziklag  and  remained  there  for  a  year  and  four  months. 
In  order  that  he  might  still  support  his  tribesmen  he  made 
frequent  raids  against  the  Amalekites,  the  Geshurites,  and 
other  tribes  which  dwelt  south  of  the  Philistines  toward  the 
land  of  Egypt.  In  order  that  the  king  might  not  learn  that 
he  was  making  raids  upon  these  southern  tribes,  he  killed, 
as  a  rule,  both  men  and  women,  returning  with  the  plunder, 
which  he  gave  to  his  men  and  from  which  also  he  paid  tribute 
to  the  king  of  Gath.  He,  however,  pretended  to  the  king 
that  he  was  continually  making  attacks  against  the  South 
Country  of  Judah,  or  against  the  country  of  the  Kenites,  or 


26  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

other  of  the  Hebrew  tribes,  so  that  the  king  would  feel  that 
he  had  turned  completely  against  the  Hebrews  and  that  he 
would  always  remain  faithful  to  him. 

The  Philistines,  probably  feeling  that  as  they  had  won  the 
strongest  warrior  of  the  Israelites,  they  might  more  readily 
succeed  in  their  attacks,  decided  to  make  war  against  the 
Hebrews.  David  and  his  men  were  summoned  by  Achish. 
Naturally  the  young  Hebrew  chieftain  found  himself  in  a 
painful  position.  He  had  not  before  attacked  the  Hebrews. 
He  clearly  did  not  wish  to  do  so  now.  But,  seeing  no  way  of 
avoiding  the  issue,  he  agreed  to  go  with  the  king  against  the 
Israelites.  When,  however,  the  other  kings  of  the  Philistines 
learned  that  he  was  with  them,  they  objected  strongly,  saying 
that  if  he  were  to  go  down  wtth  them  to  battle  and  was  in 
the  camp  with  them,  he  might  wish  to  ingratiate  himself  with 
his  former  leader  and  thus,  in  the  battle  itself,  might  turn 
against  them.  He,  therefore,  was  directed  not  to  go  into  the 
battle,  but  to  return  to  his  home  at  Ziklag. 

When  he  drew  near  his  home,  he  learned  that  during  his 
absence  the  Amalekites  had  made  a  raid  upon  his  country, 
had  carried  away  captive  all  the  people  who  were  in  it,  includ- 
ing David's  wives  and  children,  and  had  destroyed  the  town 
with  fire. 

After  consulting  the  oracle  of  Jehovah,  David  pursued  the 
raiders  with  his  six  hundred  men.  At  the  Brook  Besor  he  left 
two  hundred,  who  had  become  wearied,  in  charge  of  the  bag- 
gage, while  he  went  hastily  on  with  four  hundred  men.  Over- 
taking the  Amalekites  while  they  were  eating  and  drinking  and 
dancing  on  account  of  the  spoils  they  had  taken,  he  routed 
them  completely,  killing  all  the  men  excepting  four  hundred 
young  men  who  rode  upon  camels,  and  recovering  his  wives 
and  all  who  had  been  captured,  together  with  all  the  plunder. 
On  his  return,  he  decided  that  the  spoils  should  be  divided 
not  only  among  the  warriors  themselves  but  that  those  who 
had  remained  behind  in  charge  of  the  baggage  should  also 
have  their  share,  thus  establishing  an  entirely  new  custom 
which  henceforth  obtained  among  the  Hebrews. 

Again  in  the  final  division  of  the  spoils  David's  hopes  and 
plans  for  the  future  are  disclosed,  for  he  sent  portions  to  his 
friends  among  the  elders  of  Judah.  He  also  sent  gifts  to  the 
leaders  of  the  tribes  in  southern  Palestine,  in  Hebron,  in  the 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  27 

cities  of  the  Kenites  and  in  all  of  the  other  places  where  he 
and  his  men  had  earlier  dwelt.  In  this  way  he  secured  and  held 
the  friendship,  not  only  of  his  own  people  of  Judah,  but  also 
of  all  of  the  stronger  tribes  of  southern  Canaan.  It  was 
already  beginning  to  appear  that  Saul's  strength  was  waning 
and  that  a  change  in  the  political  situation  might  soon  arise 
which  would  open  the  way  for  David  to  become  one  of  the 
great  leaders  of  his  race.  As  soon  as  the  place  should  open 
for  him,  it  was  beyond  question  that  he  would  be  ready  for 
it.  If  there  came  a  conflict  between  the  different  tribes,  he, 
as  a  friend  to  many,  would  be  far  more  likely  to  succeed. 
David  was  showing  himself  here  again,  as  so  many  times 
before,  not  merely  the  warrior,  but  also  the  man  of  tact  and 
the  diplomat. 

As  we  shall  see,  the  Philistines  were  completely  successful 
in  their  attacks  upon  the  Hebrews,  and  Saul  and  his  sons 
were  slain.  When,  however,  the  victorious  Philistines  re- 
turned home,  David  already  having  heard  the  news,  had 
abandoned  the  town  of  Ziklag  and  had  gone  up  to  Hebron, 
where  in  the  midst  of  his  Hebrew  kinsmen,  he  began  to 
strengthen  his  hold  upon  all  the  other  tribes.  His  tact 
and  progress  in  winning  friends  were  such  that  within  a  very 
few  years  he  had  succeeded  in  uniting  all  of  Israel  into  one 
kingdom. 

Would  David  have  been  justified  under  the  circumstances, 
in  killing  Saul,  when  the  king  was  in  his  power?  Aside  from 
the  moral  issue,  would  it  have  been  good  policy  for  David 
to  have  taken  SauPs  life?  Did  David  do  right  in  going  to 
the  Philistines  and  taking  up  his  residence  among  them  on 
friendly  terms?  Was  David  justified  in  deceiving  the  king 
of  Gath  regarding  the  plundering  expeditions  that  he  was 
making  against  the  Amalekites  and  in  pretending  that  he  was 
plundering  the  southern  Hebrew  tribes?  When  the  Philistines 
were  about  to  attack  Saul  and  his  followers,  was  David  justified 
in  going  with  them  and  pretending  that  he  would  himself 
join  in  the  attack  upon  the  Hebrews?  Indicate  the  different 
ways  in  which  his  experiences  in  the  wilderness  and  afterward 
among  the  Philistines,  were  tending  to  fit  him  for  the  position 
of  king  of  the  Hebrews.  Had  he  any  reason  for  believing 
that  he  would  be  able  to  unite  all  the  various  tribes  of  the 
Hebrews  into  one  great  kingdom? 


28  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

V. 
DAVID'S  RELIGIOUS  SPIRIT  AND  PATRIOTISM. 

David  attributed  his  success  not  at  all  to  his  personal  charm, 
or  to  his  ability,  or  even  to  his  bravery.  In  the  case  of  most 
of  his  battles  he  waited  until  after  he  had  consulted  the  priests 
regarding  the  wishes  of  Jehovah,  and  after  the  contests  were 
over,  he  gave  the  praise  to  the  Lord  of  hosts  who,  he  believed, 
was  protecting  Israel.  In  all  of  his  battles  we  find  likewise 
no  evidence  of  personal  self-seeking,  but  a  spirit  of  loyalty 
and  love  for  his  country  and  his  followers. 

When  urging  upon  Saul  the  desirability  of  letting  him  fight 
with  the  Philistine  giant,  David  said  that  Jehovah,  who  had 
delivered  him  from  the  claw  of  the  lion  and  the  claw  of  the 
bear  would  deliver  him  also  from  the  hand  of  this  Philistine. 
As  Goliath  in  his  boastings  cursed  David  by  his  god,  David 
responded:  "You  come  to  me  with  a  sword  and  a  spear  and 
a  shield,  but  I  come  to  you  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  of  hosts 
and  the  God  of  the  ranks  of  Israel  whom  you  have  insulted. 
Today  Jehovah  will  deliver  you  into  my  hands  that  I  may 
smite  you  and  cut  off  your  head,  and  I  will  this  day  give  the 
head  of  the  army  of  the  Philistines  to  the  birds  of  the  heavens 
and  to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  earth,  that  all  the  world  may 
know  that  there  is  a  God  in  Israel.  For  the  battle  is  Jehovah's 
and  he  will  give  you  into  pur  hands." 

After  he  had  been  banished  from  the  court  and  Saul  by  his 
own  rashness  and  through  carelessness  of  his  guards,  had  come 
into  David's  hands  so  that  his  life  might  easily  have  been 
taken,  the  knightly  warrior  withheld  his  hand,  saying:  "  Jehovah 
liveth.  Either  Jehovah  shall  smite  him  or  his  day  shall  come 
to  die,  or  he  shall  go  down  into  battle  and  be  destroyed.  Jehovah 
forbid  that  I  should  put  forth  my  hand  against  Jehovah's 
anointed."  In  his  response  to  Saul's  invitation  to  come  over 
to  him  in  a  friendly  spirit,  he  said:  "  Jehovah  will  reward  each 
man's  righteousness  and  fidelity;  for  Jehovah  delivered  you 
into  my  hand  today,  but  I  would  not  raise  my  hand  against 
Jehovah's  anointed." 

Again,  when,  owing  to  the  entreaties  of  Abigail,  he  decided 
to  spare  the  life  of  Nabal,  he  looked  upon  that  also  as  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  will  of  Jehovah,  saying:  "Blessed  be  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Israel,  who  sent  you  this  day  to  meet  me.  Blessed 


The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  29 

be  your  discretion,  and  blessed  be  you  yourself  who  have  kept 
me  this  day  from  committing  an  act  of  bloodshed  and  from 
delivering  myself  by  my  own  hand." 

His  patriotism  is  shown  no  less  by  the  fact  that  when  he 
was  living  among  the  Philistines  and  even  leading  the  king 
of  Gath  to  believe  that  he  was  frequently  plundering  the 
Hebrews  and  treating  them  as  enemies,  he  continually  spared 
them  but  turned  his  hand  rather  against  the  Amalekites  and 
others  who  were  their  enemies. 

We,  of  course,  do  not  know  when  there  came  to  David 
the  vision  of  the  greater  Israel  which  should  unite  all  of  the 
different  tribes  into  one  nation  with  himself  as  king.  There 
is,  however,  reason  to  believe  that  this  vision  had  come  to 
him  early,  for  nowhere  in  his  history  do  we  find  any  appear- 
ance of  jealousy;  nowhere  do  we  find  it  recorded  that  he, 
being  of  Judah,  looked  down  in  contempt  upon  the  tribes 
of  Benjamin  or  any  of  the  tribes  of  the  northern  Israelites. 
Always  the  Hebrews  were  the  people  of  the  chosen  nation, 
always  Jehovah  was  the  one  King  and  Lord  of  them  all.  Even 
after  the  death  of  Saul  we  find  that  his  son  Ishbaal,  who  had 
succeeded  to  his  position,  was  looked  upon  by  David  as  the 
rightful  king  of  the  northern  Hebrews.  And  when  with 
the  purpose  of  winning  David's  favor,  possibly  with  some 
desire  of  uniting  the  kingdom  but,  at  any  rate,  with  the  thought 
of  becoming  his  followers,  the  guerrilla  captains,  Baanah  and 
Rechab,  killed  the  young  king  and  brought  his  head  to  David, 
he  had  them  promptly  killed  for  their  act  of  treachery,  and 
also  because  they  had  "slain  a  righteous  person  in  his  own 
house  upon  his  own  bed." 

Although  as  a  private  individual  David  committed  many 
sins,  and  he  himself  realized  his  own  weakness,  he'always  placed 
his  reliance  on  Jehovah.  Although  not  all,  if  any  of  the 
psalms  that  have  been  attributed  to  David  were  written  by 
him,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  was  one  of  the  great  singers 
of  Israel  and  one  whose  soul  was  kindled  with  true  poetic  fire. 

No  less  insistent  throughout  all  the  records  of  David's 
activity  is  the  spirit  of  patriotism,  of  absolute  devotion  to  the 
welfare  of  his  people,  of  a  readiness  to  do  all,  to  be  anything,  to 
suffer  anything,  if  only  through  the  favor  of  Jehovah  as  he 
believed  and  in  accordance  with  his  will,  the  nation  may  be 
brought  to  its  highest  estate  and  the  people  of  Jehovah  be 


30  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

exalted.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  his  day  and  nation, 
this  spirit  of  religion  and  this  trust  in  the  power  and  special 
favor  of  Jehovah  had  much  to  do  with  securing  for  David 
the  confidence  and  trust  and  love  of  his  people.  They  were 
no  small  part  of  that  equipment  which  enabled  him  to  become 
the  great  king  who  should  unify  his  race. 

Is  there  any  essential  difference  between  doing  the  will  of 
God  and  living  conscientiously,  doing  from  day  to  day  what 
one  believes  to  be  his  duty? 

Should  any  less  credit  be  given  to  David  for  unselfish  patriot- 
ism because  he  realized  that  by  cultivating  the  favor  of  the 
different  tribes  of  Israel  he  could  best  succeed  in  holding  their 
friendship  and  bringing  them  into  a  single  kingdom?  Was 
his  treatment  of  Saul  right  and  just  throughout?  Was  his 
treatment  of  Abner  right  and  just?  In  the  light  of  the  age  and 
the  ideas  of  the  ancient  East,  were  David's  religious  professions 
mere  hypocrisy? 

THE  SPIRIT  AND  STANDARDS  OF  AN  AGE. 

In  these  modern  days  we  hear  much  about  the  "spirit  of 
the  age"  in  which  we  live.  It  has  been  shown  by  many  his- 
torians and  writers  on  political  questions  that  men  are  to  a 
great  extent  the  product  of  their  time,  and  often  too  little 
credit  seems  to  be  given  to  individuals  for  the  originality  of 
their  own  thoughts  or  of  their  own  plans  of  work  and  of  success. 
And  it  is  largely  true  that  we  are  all  the  product  of  our  times, 
and  that  our  acts  are  determined  largely  by  the  customs  under 
which  we  live.  And  yet  the  great  individual  counts. 

In  those  ancient  days  it  would  scarcely  have  been  possible 
for  either  Saul  or  David  to  have  become  the  great  leaders 
of  their  people,  had  they  not  been  men  of  remarkable  physical 
power,  men  who  were  successful  in  battle  and  in  hand-to-hand 
conflicts.  Combined  with  this  physical  strength  and  skill 
was  also  of  necessity  found  a  bold  and  brave  spirit  which 
did  not  shrink  from  danger.  But  at  the  present  day,  though 
we  do  admire  physical  courage  and  prowess,  those  qualities 
are  not  necessary  to  success.  Among  the  great  statesmen  of 
modern  times,  such  as  Mr.  Gladstone  or  Disraeli  of  England, 
the  question  of  physical  courage  is  rarely  raised,  and  still  less 
often  does  one  speak  of  their  feats  of  strength  and  endurance. 


1  The  Development  of  a  Great  Leader  31 

Mental  accomplishment,  real  brain  power,  originality  in 
developing  new  plans,  oratory,  and  the  power  to  persuade  the 
multitude  —  these  traits  are  more  often  looked  upon  as  ele- 
ments of  success  than  mere  physical  courage.  Doubtless  even 
in  David's  day  these  also  played  their  parts;  but  they,  at 
that  time,  were  of  less  importance  than  physical  power  and 
personal  prowess. 

The  leaders  of  men  at  that  time,  however,  adopted  means 
to  accomplish  their  ends  that  now  would  be  sharply  con- 
demned. David,  fleeing  from  the  wrath  of  Saul,  lied  to  the 
priests  of  Nob  regarding  his  purposes  and  the  reasons  for  his 
leaving  the  court.  In  such  circumstances  many  people  would 
deceive  today;  but  now  such  deceptions  would  hardly  be 
recorded  without  some  indication  that  the  act  was  wrong. 
Beyond  doubt,  the  conscience  of  the  average  man  today  is 
much  more  sensitive  on  the  question  of  truth-telling  than  in 
the  ancient  days. 

David  also  for  many  months  adopted  a  regular  course  of 
deception  toward  the  king  of  Gath  in  whose  city  he  was  living. 
In  order  that  his  deception  might  not  be  discovered,  in  all  of 
his  regular  forays  he  slew  all  persons,  men,  women  and  children, 
who  might  report  where  his  attacks  were  made.  No  such 
practices  today  would  be  tolerated  in  any  civilized  country. 
And  yet,  in  the  words  of  the  ancient  narrative  not  only  is 
no  word  of  condemnation  uttered,  but  his  act  seems  to  be 
silently  justified. 

Of  even  greater  importance  are  some  personal  characteristics 
of  temper  and  cruelty  toward  those  who  opposed  their  will. 
Saul,  in  fits  of  anger,  which  are  looked  upon  in  the  narrative 
really  as  the  consequence  of  a  mental  malady,  attempted 
repeatedly  to  kill  David.  He  also  slew  the  priests  of  Nob, 
because  he  thought  they  had  been  favoring  David.  David 
himself  in  many  instances  showed  anger  and  committed 
deeds  that  at  the  present  time  would  in  no  country  of  the 
world  be  tolerated.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  intervention 
of  Abigail,  he  would  doubtless  have  slain  Nabal  and  many 
of  his  followers,  simply  because  he  had  not  been  properly 
recognized  and  had  been  refused  food  for  himself  and  his  men 
when  he  felt  that  he  had  a  right  to  expect  friendly  hospitality. 

He  also  condemned  without  hearing,  but  properly  enough,  the 
treacherous  slayers  of  the  young  king  Ishbaal.  On  the  other 


32  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

hand  we  can  see  no  justification  from  the  modern  point  of 
view  for  his  killing  out  of  hand  the  man  who  came  to  bring 
him  news  of  the  death  of  Saul  and  his  two  sons  in  the  fatal 
battle  of  Mount  Gilboa.  We  know  that  modern  times  would 
not  justify  his  various  marriages,  although  probably  they 
would  justify  his  refusal  to  receive  Abner  and  his  friends 
when  they  wished  to  make  peace  with  him  after  the  death  of 
Saul,  unless  they  brought  with  them  Michal,  his  first  wife, 
whom  Saul,  after  David's  expulsion  from  the  kingdom,  had 
given  to  another  husband.  These  various  actions  that  have 
been  mentioned,  and  many  others  that  might  be  cited,  call 
attention  most  vividly  to  the  great  difference  in  customs 
between  those  days  and  these.  And  yet,  throughout  all  the 
narratives,  we  find  clearly  brought  before  us  the  noble  qualities 
of  magnanimity,  uprightness,  bravery,  and,  perhaps  above  all, 
the  spirit  of  righteous  devotion  to  an  ideal  and  the  unselfish 
readiness  to  do  one's  duty  even  though  one  is  not  to  receive 
an  immediate  reward.  There  can  be  no  question  that  some 
of  the  most  fundamental  principles  of  success  are  substantially 
unchangeable  at  all  periods  of  human  history  and  in  all  stages 
of  civilization.  Personal  bravery,  trustworthiness,  fidelity  to 
one's  friends,  the  ability  to  stand  for  a  principle  and  to  sacrifice, 
if  necessary,  for  that  principle,  and  a  spirit  which  looks  up 
to  one's  God  as  the  guide  of  one's  life — these  characteristics 
have  always  been  fundamental;  they  have  always  been  admired 
and  loved.  They  have  always  been  among  the  leading  con- 
tributors to  success  in  any  stage  of  civilization  and  in  any 
department -of  human  activity. 

Do  the  customs  of  David's  day  excuse  him  for  cruelty? 
It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  a  man's  stage  of  civilization 
can  be  judged  by  his  willingness  to  break  with  the  customs  of 
his  day  for  the  sake  of  accomplishing  his  end.  How  far  is 
this  opinion  right?  How  far  ought  a  man  to  follow  the  cus- 
toms of  his  day,  and  in  what  circumstances  ought  he  to  violate 
those  customs? 

Subjects  far  Further  Study. 

(1)  Origin  and  Character  of  the  Philistines.    Encyclopedia  Biblica,  III, 
pp.  3713-3721;  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  III,  pp.  844-848. 

(2)  Select   the   American  public   man    (soldier   or  statesman)  whose 
character  in  your  judgment  most  resembles  the  strong,  good  qualities  in 
David's  character.     Study  carefully  his  life  and  career;  then  judge  the 
relative  greatness  and  service  to  the  world  of  the  two  men. 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship    33 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  NEED  OF  BREADTH  AND  SELF-CONTROL  IN 
STATESMANSHIP. 

SAUL'S  CHARACTER  AND  FATE. — I  Sam.  19;  31;  II  Sam.  1. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  87-91,  114-120. 
Croly,  Chap.  Ill;  Lowell,  Chaps.  V,  VI. 

And  the  women  sang  to  each  other  as  they  danced,  and  said, 
Saul  has  slain  his  thousands, 
But  David  his  ten  thousands. 

And  it  made  Saul  very  angry,  and  this  saying  displeased  him,  and  he 
said,  They  ascribed  to  David  ten  thousands,  while  to  me  they  ascribed 
but  thousands,  and  what  can  he  have  more  but  the  kingdom?  And 
Saul  kept  his  eye  on  David  from  that  day  forward.  And  Saul  was 
afraid  of  David.— I  Sam.  18:  7,  8. 

Daughters  of  Israel,  weep  over  Saul, 

Who  clothed  you  daintily  in  finest  linen, 

Golden  ornaments  he  placed  on  your  garments, 

How  the  mighty  have  fallen  in  the  midst  of  battle! — II  Sam.  1: 24. 

He  that  is  slow  to  anger  is  better  than  the  mighty; 

And  he  that  ruleth  his  spirit,  than  he  that  taketh  a  city. — Prov.  16: 82. 

I  have  touched  the  highest  point  of  all  my  greatness: 
And,  from  that  full  meridian  of  my  glory, 
I  haste  now  to  my  setting. — Shakespeare. 

Of  all  the  passions,  jealousy  is  that  which  exacts  the  hardest  service, 
and  pays  the  bitterest  wages.  Its  service  is:  to  watch  the  success  of 
our  enemy;  its  wages:  to  be  sure  of  it. — Colton. 

I. 

THE  WEAKENING  POWER  OP  JEALOUSY. 

There  are  few  more  pathetic  figures  in  biblical  history  than 
Saul.  He  was  possessed  of  many  heroic  characteristics.  He 
was  the  man  who  founded  the  kingdom,  and  was  probably  the 
only  leader  in  Israel  at  that  time  who  could  have  established 
it;  and  yet,  on  account  of  his  personal  weaknesses,  he  eventually 
failed. 

The  most  noteworthy  of  his  weaknesses,  perhaps,  was  that 
of  jealousy — one  of  the  most  natural,  common,  and  yet  un- 
pleasant and  injurious  characteristics  of  human  nature.  When, 
on  account  of  the  military  success  of  David,  Saul's  subjects 


34  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

began  to  praise  him,  the  king  felt  that  he  had  reason  to  fear 
for  his  throne.  In  those  early  days  of  warfare,  when  personal 
prowess  was  the  chief  element  of  success  in  a  warrior,  this  fear 
was  not  unnatural.  Only  a  man  confident  in  his  own  power, 
generous  of  heart,  and  a  reader  of  other  men's  souls,  would 
have  been  able  without  such  fear  to  listen  to  the  praises  of  one 
who  might  well  become  a  rival.  We  know  enough  of  the 
personal  characteristics  of  David  to  be  confident  that  Saul 
had  no  real  cause  for  fear,  but  he  was  not  a  good  judge  of 
human  nature.  He  did  not  understand  the  nobility  of  David's 
character,  and  as  we  see  from  many  other  instances  in  his  life, 
he  did  not  have  full  confidence  in  his  own  strength  and  ability. 
It  is  a  great  man  who  will  put  an  enemy  or  one  whom  he  be- 
lieves to  be  opposed  to  himself  into  a  position  of  authority. 
A  well-known  university  president  recently  invited  into  his 
faculty  and  promoted  a  man  whom  he  believed  to  be  his  per- 
sonal enemy,  because,  as  he  said,  "this  great  scholar  can 
bring  credit  and  strength  to  the  university,  and  why  should 
I  place  my  own  comfort  before  the  welfare  of  the  university?" 
But  this  university  president  had  confidence  in  his  own  strength 
and  was  a  man  far  above  the  narrow  weakness  of  any  petty 
jealousy. 

Besides  suspicion,  another  element  of  jealousy  that  causes 
the  greatest  unhappiness  to  its  victim  is  envy.  Saul  not 
merely  feared  David,  he  envied  him  his  popularity;  and,  as 
we  see,  every  sign  of  affection  toward  David  on  the  part  of 
Jonathan  or  of  the  people  caused  King  Saul  the  greatest  personal 
suffering  because  of  his  despicable  envy. 

Any  exhibition  of  jealousy  is  at  once  recognized  by  those 
who  see  it  as  a  weakness,  and  most  persons  despise  it  intensely. 
We  may  readily  note  how  Saul  lost  the  favor  and  friendship 
of  his  followers  by  this  feeling  toward  David.  When  the 
maidens  of  Israel,  on  David's  return  from  battle,  sang  that 
Saul  had  slain  his  thousands  and  David  his  ten  thousands, 
it  is  quite  probable  that  at  first  they  had  no  thought  of  dis- 
loyalty to  Saul.  They  naturally  wanted  to  praise  the  return- 
ing champion,  and  in  the  exuberance  of  generous  feeling  toward 
him  and  of  patriotic  love  for  their  country,  which  they  thought 
his  victory  had  saved,  they  exaggerated  the  relative  merit 
of  the  youthful  warrior.  Saul's  resentment,  however,  of  the 
song  must  have  cooled  their  loyalty  to  the  king,  and  would 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship    35 

certainly  tend  to  strengthen  rather  than  to  weaken  their 
preference  for  David. 

Moreover,  when  Saul  in  his  jealous  hatred,  after  David  had 
been  compelled  to  flee  from  court,  ordered  the  assassina- 
tion of  the  priests  of  Nob,  because  in  all  innocence  Ahimelech 
had  welcomed  David,  whom  he  supposed  to  be  on  an  im- 
portant errand  for  the  king,  the  king  not  only  alienated  all 
the  friends  of  these  priests  of  Nob,  but  he  also  lost  the  con- 
fidence and  affection  of  his  right-minded  followers. 

Saul's  persistent  pursuit  of  David  could  not  fail  to  have 
had  an  ill  effect  upon  all  the  soldiers  engaged  in  the  chase. 
They  knew  that  on  one  occasion  at  least  David  had  spared 
Saul's  life,  when  he  might  readily  have  taken  it.  David  had, 
moreover,  been  a  popular  comrade  of  theirs  in  earlier  days, 
and  for  them  to  see  Saul,  goaded  on  by  his  groundless  fear 
and  jealousy,  attempting  to  take  the  life  of  their  friend  and 
favorite  must  have  detracted  greatly  from  their  loyalty  toward 
him. 

Jealousy  tends  also  to  prevent  success  not  only  in  warfare, 
but  also  in  all  fields  of  activity.  How  often,  for  example,  a 
young  surgeon  or  teacher  or  engineer,  because  he  is  jealous  of  the 
rising  reputation  of  another  member  of  his  own  profession, 
fails  to  learn  from  the  man  whom  he  fears  to  be  a  rival  the 
special  points  of  superiority  which  that  rival  possesses.  The 
more  modest  man,  too  broad-minded  to  be  tinged  with  jealousy, 
seeks  information  from  every  source;  and  this  breadth  of  view 
and  readiness  to  gain  strength  from  all  persons,  even  those 
who  may  be  rivals,  leads  perhaps  more  than  anything  else 
to  success.  The  scientific  men  who  advance  most  rapidly 
are  those  who  are  modestly  glad  to  learn  from  any  source, 
however  humble. 

It  is  perhaps  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  this  weakness  of 
Saul's  eventually  cost  him  his  kingdom.  David  was  not,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  Saul's  rival,  as  his  subsequent  history  showed. 
He  was  beyond  all  question  a  loyal  friend  of  Saul's  son  and 
presumptive  successor,  Jonathan.  Had  he  remained  at  Saul's 
court  as  a  member  of  his  military  staff,  as  one  of  his  chief 
leaders  in  war,  he  would  have  brought  to  Saul's  side  his  friends 
and  kinsmen  of  Judah  and  of  the  southern  tribes,  who  after- 
wards became  David's  allies  in  his  contests  with  Saul's  suc- 
cessors. Had  Saul  retained  the  friendship  of  David,  it  is 


36  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

more  than  probable  that  the  fatal  battle  of  Gilboa  would 
never  have  been  fought;  that  either  the  Philistines,  knowing 
the  strength  of  Israel,  would  not  have  attacked,  or  had  they 
attacked  the  Israelites,  Saul,  with  the  aid  of  David  and  with 
the  united  strength  that  would  thus  have  been  at  his  side, 
would  have  won  a  victory  instead  of  suffering  fatal  defeat. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  weakening  power  of  jealousy 
cost  Saul  his  happiness  for  years,  and  eventually  his  life. 

Are  you  willing  to  see  any  rival  in  business  or  in  sport  pass 
you?  In  any  contest  does  the  strife  itself  or  the  victory  im- 
prove you  most  personally?  As  our  years  increase  or  we 
attain  to  higher  positions  in  business  or  society  or  work,  are 
our  rivals  in  all  fields  of  activity  of  a  higher  class  and  more 
worthy  as  contestants?  Is  the  contest  for  the  presidency 
more  interesting  and  enjoyable  to  the  contestant  than  that 
for  governor,  or  the  contest  for  the  governorship  more  exciting 
and  enjoyable  than  that  for  alderman?  Enumerate  certain 
major  advantages  that  come  from  rivalry  in  business  or  scholar- 
ship or  moral  excellence.  Can  any  advantage  come  from 
yielding  to  jealousy? 

II. 

THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  SAUL  AND  DAVID. 

The  lives  of  Saul  and  David  were  so  interwoven  that  one 
naturally  thinks  of  the  two  men  together,  and  one  finds  him- 
self even  unconsciously  contrasting  their  strong  and  weak 
points.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  David 
was  the  favorite  character  with  almost  all  of  the  writers — 
certainly  all  of  the  later  writers  of  Hebrew  history.  We  must, 
therefore,  expect  that  when  he  is  contrasted  with  Saul,  the 
narrators  are  unconsciously  prejudiced  in  his  favor.  In  spite 
of  this  fact,  however,  there  are  definite  enough  statements 
regarding  the  acts  of  each  to  enable  us  to  form  a  positive  judg- 
ment of  the  personal  characteristics  of  the  two  men. 

In  that  earlier  day  when  leadership  meant  primarily  leader- 
ship in  battle,  it  was,  of  course,  essential  that  both  of  these 
great  military  leaders  be  brave,  and  at  no  time  do  we  find 
the  personal  courage  of  either  hero  questioned. 

David  was,  beyond  doubt,  by  far  the  more  pleasing  per- 
sonality. Men  turned  to  him,  not  only  because  they  trusted 
him  and  needed  his  assistance,  but  also  because  they  liked 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self -Control  in  Statesmanship    37 

him.  From  the  beginning  he  was  popular  at  the  court  of 
Saul.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  songs  of  the  women 
in  praise  of  David  that  aroused  Saul's  jealousy  were  phrased 
in  so  complimentary  terms  because  the  singers  liked  the  hero, 
and  they  sang  gladly  the  praises  of  the  man  whom  they  per- 
sonally admired  and  whom  every  one  loved.  Moreover,  when 
David  was  driven  from  Saul's  court  and  gathered  about  him 
a  band  of  the  discontented,  it  was  clear  from  their  later  achieve- 
ments that  many  of  his  followers,  if  not  all,  were  men  who 
came  to  him  not  for  the  sake  of  plunder  or  for  the  love  of 
fighting,  but  because  he  had  aroused  in  them  a  feeling  of 
personal  loyalty  which  made  them  wish  to  serve  him.  No- 
where in  the  records  do  we  find  any  intimation  of  this  personal 
attractiveness  in  Saul.  David  was  loyal  to  him  because  he 
was  the  king,  the  Lord's  anointed,  and  from  all  the  records  we 
derive  the  impression  that  he  was  chosen  king  in  the  first  place 
because  of  his  mighty  deeds  in  war  and  his  promise  of  becoming 
a  great  warrior  king.  Saul's  method  of  gathering  about  him 
the  Israelites  for  their  attack  upon  the  cruel  Ammonites  east 
of  the  Jordan,  by  slaying  the  oxen  with  which  he  had  been 
ploughing  and  sending  the  gory  pieces  about  among  the  chief- 
tains, summoning  them  to  follow  him  for  vengeance,  shows 
indeed  the  characteristics  of  a  leader  in  kindling  the  spirit  of 
patriotism  and  fight,  but  does  not  show  any  ability  to  arouse 
personal  affection. 

David,  although  a  man  of  marked  ability  and  one  who  met 
with  pronounced  success  in  practically  all  of  his  undertakings, 
was,  nevertheless,  one  whose  manner  at  least  was  modest  and 
who  never  thrust  himself  forward  into  positions  to  which  he 
was  not  called.  When  the  suggestion  was  first  made  that  he 
become  the  king's  son-in-law,  his  reply  was  modest,  but  when 
the  opportunity  was  clearly  before  him,  his  action  was  prompt, 
decisive,  and  successful.  Although  Saul,  after  his  anointing 
by  Samuel,  went  quietly  back  to  his  home  and  waited  for  the 
opportunity  to  come  before  he  assumed  the  r61e  of  leader, 
his  jealousy  of  David  and  his  readiness  to  put  out  of  the 
way  his  chief  supporter  and  warrior,  show  a  touch  of  personal 
vanity,  as  well  as  doubt  of  his  own  capacity  to  control  a  diffi- 
cult situation,  which  is  a  sure  sign  of  weakness. 

Saul  also  seemed  to  lack  the  feeling  of  faithful  loyalty  to 
a  friend  which  David  possessed.  David  had  given  him  no 


38  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

real  cause  for  hatred  when  he  attempted  to  slay  him.  In  his 
rash  jealousy  at  one  time  he  threatened  to  strike  his  loyal  son 
Jonathan.  His  unjustifiable  slaying  of  the  priests  of  Nob 
reveals  a  lack  of  loyalty  to  his  followers  and  to  those  who 
had  been  faithful  to  him  that  is  a  decided  blemish  on  his 
character,  although  of  his  general  patriotism  and  devotion 
to  Israel  as  a  whole  there  is  no  question.  David,  on  the  other 
hand,  shows  the  quintessence  of  faithful  loyalty  in  his  relations 
not  only  to  Saul  himself,  whose  life  he  spared  on  at  least  one 
memorable  occasion,  but  also  later  in  the  care  which  he  took 
for  the  welfare  of  the  descendants  of  his  tried  friend  of  the 
olden  days,  Jonathan. 

Entirely  aside  from  the  question  of  any  mental  derange- 
ment, Saul  was  evidently  impulsive,  and  at  times  generous, 
as  when,  in  the  earlier  days,  he  showered  favors  upon  the 
young  David,  and  also  later,  when  on  the  occasion  of  David's 
sparing  his  life,  he  called  David  his  son  and  besought  him  to 
return  again  to  court.  There  is  no  reason  for  questioning  his 
sincerity  in  this  declaration  of  friendship  and  affection  for 
David.  It  is  probable  that  in  that  mood,  he  felt  all  that  he 
said,  but  David,  knowing  his  changeable  characteristics, 
was  naturally  unwilling  to  trust  him.  David  had  a  quick 
temper  as  we  see  in  his  dealings  with  Nabal.  He  had  in  him 
much  of  the  cruelty  of  the  outlaw  of  those  early  days.  There 
can  be  little  question  that,  if  the  shrewd,  far-seeing,  charming 
Abigail  had  not  intervened,  the  punishment  of  Nabal  would 
have  been  as  bloody  and  the  plunder  of  his  goods  as  ruthless 
as  any  act  committed  by  Saul.  And  yet  there  was  this  differ- 
ence. In  accordance  with  the  customs  of  the  day  and  with 
the  ordinary  rules  of  human  action  of  that  time  and  country, 
Nabal  deserved  the  fate  that  would  have  been  meted  out  to 
him.  Nowhere  in  David's  life  do  we  find  an  instance  of  an 
action  from  impulse  without  thought  of  the  consequences. 
Even  in  the  commission  of  his  worst  sins,  that  brought  him 
eventually  misfortune  and  unhappiness,  there  is  no  reason 
for  thinking  that  his  acts  were  not  the  results  of  a  deliberate 
plan  for  the  attainment  of  his  desires. 

Saul's  heedless  rashness  led  him  at  times  to  commit  acts 
that  threatened  to  alienate  his  people.  Perhaps  the  most 
striking  example  was  his  foolish  resolve  in  the  midst  of  the 
battle  of  Michmash  to  curse  all  of  his  followers  who  should 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self -Control  in  Statesmanship    39 

eat  before  the  evening,  by  which  time  he  thought  he  would 
have  avenged  himself  upon,  the  enemy.  Such  a  command, 
accompanied  by  a  vow  of  destruction  upon  any  who  disobeyed, 
although  doubtless  founded  upon  a  good  religious  motive, 
showed  the  impulsive  foolishness  of  a  man  who,  when  his 
followers  needed  to  put  forth  their  most  strenuous  efforts, 
would  deprive  them  of  food  for  many  hours.  And  when,  not 
knowing  of  this  command,  the  beloved  Jonathan  had  tasted 
honey,  Saul  stood  ready  to  carry  out  his  vow  by  taking  his 
son's  life,  and  doubtless  Jonathan  would  have  been  sacrificed, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  intervention  of  the  people,  who  would 
not  endure  to  see  the  real  winner  of  the  battle  slain  to  fulfil  a 
rash  and  foolish  promise  of  a  reckless  king. 

In  no  case  in  David's  own  life  do  we  find  such  fatal  folly. 
Rather  do  we  note  far-sighted  plans  to  win  over  to  his  side 
those  who  would  otherwise  be  hostile,  in  order  to  clear  his 
way  of  enemies,  to  persuade  the  hesitant  that  it  would  pay 
them  to  become  his  friends.  His  acts  reveal  a  cool-headed, 
not  to  say  wily  master  of  diplomacy,  whose  every  deed  tended 
to  further  his  well-thought-out  plans. 

Even  in  their  religious  life  we  see  the  same  characteristics. 
Both  were  sincere  worshipers  and  followers  of  Jehovah,  but 
Saul  was  fanatical,  while  David's  religion  accorded  with  good 
judgment  and  was  reasonable.  We  have  already  noted  the 
rash  vow  of  Saul.  We  may  likewise  recall  that  on  his  first 
summons  to  the  kingship,  he  was  found  dancing  with  the 
sons  of  the  prophets.  Historians  are  not  fully  agreed  regarding 
the  practices  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  but  there  seems  every 
reason  to  believe  that  they  were  similar  to  the  whirling  der- 
vishes of  modern  Egypt  and  to  other  religious  enthusiasts, 
some  of  whom  have  even  been  found  in  modern  times  among 
the  uncultivated  frontiersmen  at  their  camp  meetings,  or 
among  negroes  in  their  revival  services  where  religious  en- 
thusiasm amounts  at  times  to  hysterical  frenzy. 

Contrast  these  hysterical  manifestations  of  the  sons  of  the 
prophets  with  David's  dancing  and  leaping  before  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  when,  in  later  years,  this  was  brought  to  the 
temple  in  his  new  capital  at  Jerusalem.  To  be  sure,  his  wife 
Michal,  Saul's  daughter,  was  greatly  offended  at  his  acts, 
which  she  thought  unworthy  the  dignity  of  a  king.  But 
David  had  reason  to  believe  that  the  coming  of  the  ark 


40  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

of  the  covenant  to  his  new  capital  would  make  that  capi- 
tal the  religious  center  of  all  Israel.  No  one  knew  better 
than  did  he  what  an  important  influence  this  would  have 
toward  uniting  his  kingdom  and  promoting  its  success.  No 
one  else,  perhaps,  so  well  realized  how  important  it  was  that 
all  the  people  should  be  impressed  with  the  profound  significance 
of  the  occasion.  For  the  king  thus  to  take  the  lead  in  the 
public  rejoicing  emphasized  this  thought,  and  in  all  probability 
the  emphasis  was  decidedly  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
his  action  was  unwonted.  We  have  no  evidence  that  any 
one  else  saw  anything  grotesque  or  improper  in  the  king's 
acts  excepting  Michal,  and  there  is  perhaps  good  reason  to 
believe  that  she,  moved  by  personal  jealousy  and  quite  possibly 
also  by  a  feeling  that  she  had  been  neglected,  was  disposed 
to  find  fault  with  this  husband,  who,  since  the  earlier  days, 
when  she  had  cared  for  him  and  saved  him  from  her  father's 
vengeance,  had  apparently  found  others  who  pleased  him 
more.  David's  religious  observances,  as  well  as  his  political 
acts,  appear  to  have  all  been  guided  by  a  cool  judgment  that 
did  not  lose  sight  of  an  ultimate  beneficent  purpose. 

Is  a  person  less  sincere  when  he  is  clear-headed  enough  to 
see  the  personal  advantage  to  himself  from  a  patriotic  action? 
Did  Lincoln  foresee  that  he  would  probably  attain  to  the  presi- 
dency as  a  result  of  his  patriotic  fight  against  the  extension 
of  slavery  into  the  territories?  If  so,  was  his  action  any  the 
less  praiseworthy?  Ought  a  ruler  in  his  official  capacity  to 
follow  always  the  same  rules  of  morality  as  a  man  in  private 
life?  If  David  had  really  been  trying  to  supplant  Saul,  would 
Saul  have  been  justified  in  executing  him?  What  constitutes 
treason  in  a  monarchy?  What  is  the  usual  punishment  for 
treason? 

III. 

MEANING  OF  RELIGION  IN  A  CRISIS. 

In  all  ages  and  countries  men  in  time  of  extreme  peril  have 
been  wont  to  call  upon  their  gods.  Men  who  do  not  possess 
a  religious  nature,  and  who  are  not  accustomed  to  religious 
worship,  call  in  tones  of  despair,  hoping  unreasonably  for 
some  miraculous  rescue.  On  the  other  hand,  those  of  a  religious 
nature,  accustomed  to  worship  and  to  thought  upon  matters 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship    41 

beyond  this  life,  find  in  times  of  peril  their  religion  a  source 
of  comfort  and  courage.  Such  persons  are  not  so  likely  to 
call  in  accents  of  despair  for  a  miraculous  rescue  as  to  ask  for 
courage  and  strength  to  accept  the  divine  will,  whatever  it 
may  be. 

In  the  different  periods  of  history  and  in  different  countries 
we  naturally  find  various  manifestations  of  the  effects  of 
religious  belief,  for  religion  itself  assumes  widely  varying  mean- 
ings. Primitive  peoples,  whose  idea  of  the  relations  of  men 
to  the  gods  are  merely  superstitious  fears  of  the  unseen  and 
of  the  to  them  supernatural  forces  of  nature,  often  in  times 
of  peril  make  pledges  to  their  deities  to  offer  sacrifices,  provided 
their  safety  is  secured.  They  attempt  by  these  sacrifices  or 
promises  of  gifts  at  the  altars  to  buy  the  favor  of  their  deities. 
Homer,  in  the  Iliad,  sings  of  the  hecatombs  offered  in  prayer, 
or  perhaps  even  more  often  in  thanksgiving  for  a  great  victory, 
or  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  a  hero  slain  in  battle.  In  those 
early  days  questions  of  right  and  wrong,  of  sin  and  guiltless- 
ness, are  rarely  raised,  even  in  the  minds  of  the  worshipers. 
The  question  is  rather  one  of  a  sufficiency  of  offerings  to  buy 
the  favor  of  the  gods. 

In  later  times,  of  course,  after  the  conception  of  the  deity 
has  changed,  God,  or  the  gods,  have  been  recognized  as  power- 
ful intelligences  who  judge  men  hi  terms  of  human  justice, 
and  offerings  are  accompanied  with  prayers  for  mercy  in  case 
of  acknowledged  sin,  or  with  thanksgiving  for  the  escape 
from  pain  that  would  have  been  reckoned  as  justice.  Sins  are 
recognized  as  acts  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  as  shown  by 
a  man's  conscience,  and  are  therefore  subject  to  penalties 
imposed  either  indirectly  by  obscure  or  miraculous  means,  or 
by  the  direct  working  of  natural  laws.  Wherever  men  have 
believed  in  the  mighty  intervention  of  God  in  changing  the 
effects1  of  his  natural  laws,  certain  religious  leaders,  priests  or 
medicine  men  have  claimed  the  power  of  influencing  the  gods 
directly;  and  from  this  has  come  the  sale  of  indulgences,  by 
the  purchase  of  which  a  man  might  in  advance  secure  exemp- 
tion from  the  consequences  of  acts  that  were  generally  believed 
to  be  contrary  to  the  will  of  God. 

Closely  related  to  these  various  beliefs  come  naturally  the 
wish  to  learn  in  advance  the  will  of  the  gods  or  to  foresee  the 
future.  All  of  these  different  beliefs  have  been,  at  different 


42  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

times  and  in  different  countries,  influences  that  affected  ma- 
terially the  significance  of  religion  in  times  of  crisis. 

It  is  interesting  and  important  to  note  the  ways  in  which 
their  religious  beliefs  affected  men  of  so  different  temperaments 
as  Saul  and  David  in  the  days  of  ancient  Israel.  Both  were 
profound  believers  in  Jehovah;  both  believed  that  they  were 
servants  of  Jehovah  and  were  anxious  to  carry  out  his  will. 
Before  entering  upon  acts  of  great  importance,  such  as  begin- 
ing  a  battle,  both  were  accustomed  to  seek  to  ascertain  the 
divine  will  by  consulting,  through  their  priests,  the  ephod. 
Scholars  have  been  unable  to  determine  exactly  what  is  meant 
by  the  ephod  and  how  it  was  consulted,  but  it  seems  reason- 
ably clear  from  the  results  that  the  judgment  of  the  priests, 
at  times  quite  possibly  influenced  by  the  wishes  of  the  king, 
determined  the  form  of  the  decision. 

We  have  already  seen  how  Saul,  at  the  battle  of  Michmash, 
in  his  rash  way  cursed  the  man  who  would  eat  food  before 
evening,  and  how  this  rash  vow  came  near  costing  the  Israelites 
the  life  of  the  hero  Jonathan.  When,  after  this  vow,  Saul, 
through  the  priest,  asked  of  God,  "  Shall  I  go  down  after  the 
Philistines?  Wilt  thou  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  Israel?" 
no  answer  was  received.  The  priest  probably  knew  that 
Jonathan  had  unwittingly  taken  food  that  day,  though  Saul 
had  not  yet  learned  of  it,  and  not  caring  to  make  a  decision 
in  a  matter  of  so  grave  importance  to  the  king  and  the  people, 
the  decision  was  left  to  the  sacred  lot.  Saul,  as  we  know, 
stood  ready  to  sacrifice  his  son,  carrying  out  what,  at  the 
present  time,  would  be  considered  a  mere  heathen  superstition; 
but  although  they  were  unable  to  prevent  the  disclosure  of 
Jonathan's  act,  and  although  Jonathan,  hero  as  he  was,  was 
prepared  to  accept  the  decision  and  be  put  to  death,  the  people 
were  ready,  in  a  case  of  so  great  emergency,  to  sweep  aside 
what  must  have  seemed  even  to  them  the  decision  of  God 
and  to  apply  the  principles  of  common  sense.  "  But  the  people 
said  to  Saul,  '  Shall  Jonathan  die  who  has  wrought  this  great 
deliverance  in  Israel?  Far  from  it.  As  Jehovah  liveth,  there 
shall  not  one  hair  of  his  head  fall  to  the  ground,  for  he  has 
wrought  with  God  this  day.'"  The  people  saw  far  better 
than  their  superstitious  king  that  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God 
in  guarding  the  life  of  the  innocent  was  vastly  more  important 
than  the  unwitting  violation  of  the  order  of  the  king,  though 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship     43 

that  had  been  given  from  religious  motives  and  accepted  as 
a  sacred  pledge.  Saul's  religious  attitude  in  this  time  of 
crisis  was  that  of  a  narrow-minded,  superstitious,  though 
absolutely  sincere  follower  of  what  he  believed  to  be  the  divine 
will.  The  judgment  of  the  great  mass  of  Israel's  warriors 
was  that  God's  will  must  be  in  accord  with  the  principles  of 
common  sense  and  of  sound  judgment. 

Later  in  life,  as  Saul  approached  the  last  great  crisis,  when  he 
found  himself  practically  deserted  by  the  priests  and  religious 
leaders  of  Israel,  he  turned  in  the  same  helpless,  supersti- 
tious manner  to  the  witch  of  Endor,  one  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  old  heathenism  that  still  remained  in  Palestine. 
Her  methods  seem  to  have  been  those  of  the  later  fortune- 
tellers or  spiritualistic  mediums.  Although  Saul  came  to  her 
in  disguise,  she  must  have  recognized  him  from  his  gigantic 
form  and  the  type  of  his  followers.  Presumably  her  sympathies 
were  with  his  enemies;  at  any  rate  her  judgment  was  sound 
in  the  belief  that  a  leader  consulting  her  under  such  circum- 
stances was  not  likely  to  be  successful  in  battle.  Her  summon- 
ing before  her  the  spirit  of  Samuel  and  her  pronouncement  of 
the  judgment  that  he  gave,  is  a  mark  of  not  merely  a  shrewd 
judge  of  mankind  and  of  events,  but  also  of  marked  courage 
and  determination.  Saul  was  evidently  greatly  impressed 
by  her  decision  and,  overcome  by  terror,  went  with  fear  and 
hopelessness,  though  bravely,  as  became  a  heroic  warrior,  to 
meet  his  fate. 

Nowhere  in  David's  life  do  we  find  any  such  crude  mani- 
festation of  religious  belief  in  times  of  emergency.  He,  too, 
before  the  battle  consulted  the  ephpd,  but  his  priests,  knowing 
the  spirit  of  the  leader,  in  every  instance  cited  in  the  Bible, 
advised  an  attack  and  predicted  victory.  Nowhere  do  we 
find  David  uttering  any  rash  vows  which  might  either  weaken 
his  followers  or  lead  to  such  terrible  consequences  as  occurred 
in  the  sacrifice  of  Jephthah's  daughter  in  the  early  wars  against 
the  Ammonites  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  or  as  would  have 
resulted  in  the  sacrifice  of  Jonathan  had  not  the  people's 
judgment  been  much  sounder  than  that  of  their  king.  David's 
religion  seems  always  to  have  been  a  source  of  courage  and 
of  comfort  to  him  in  times  of  crisis,  excepting  when  his  own 
conscience  told  him  that  his  acts  had  been  wrong,  and  that  it 
was  his  duty  to  make  reparation.  When  the  prophet  Nathan 


44  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

most  shrewdly  and  wisely,  though  boldly,  aroused  the  con- 
science of  the  king  to  recognize  his  guilt  in  the  seizure  of  Bath- 
sheba  and  the  wanton  sacrifice  of  Uriah  the  Hittite,  the  king 
recognized  his  guilt.  His  religion  led  him  to  call  upon  God 
for  mercy,  though  his  religious  belief  was  not  strong  enough 
to  lead  him  to  any  further  attempt  to  put  away  his  sin.  It 
was,  perhaps,  then  too  late  to  make  any  kind  of  reparation. 
Throughout  his  life,  however,  David's  religion  was  to  him  a 
source  of  joy  and  strength. 

Why  do  people  of  the  present  day  ever  seriously  seek  to 
have  their  fortunes  told?  How  does  the  mere  listening  to  one's 
fortune  thus  told  tend  in  itself  to  bring  about  the  results  pre- 
dicted? Ought  one's  prayer  in  time  of  crisis  to  be  a  plea  for 
rescue  and  safety  or  for  strength  and  courage  to  meet  the 
crisis  sanely  and  to  accept  whatever  result  may  come  as  the 
will  of  God?  Many  of  the  members  of  ignorant  Mohammedan 
tribes  of  Upper  Egypt  are  said  to  have  attacked  the  English 
battle  squares  with  reckless  bravery,  because  their  religion 
had  taught  them  that  death  won  in  slaying  a  Christian  would 
lead  them  straight  to  a  blissful  paradise.  Before  Port  Arthur 
in  the  Russo-Japanese  war  thousands  of  Japanese  marched 
cheerfully  to  certain  death,  because  it  was  said  they  counted 
it  a  joy  and  privilege  to  sacrifice  their  lives  for  the  sake  of  their 
beloved  Emperor  whom  they  counted  divine,  the  direct  de- 
scendant of  the  gods.  At  the  battle  of  Gettysburg  the  Con- 
federate soldiers  whose  bravery  gave  world-wide  fame  to 
Pickett's  charge,  went  cheerfully  against  the  Northern  lines, 
knowing  that  many  of  them  could  never  return.  Compare  and 
distinguish  carefully  the  differences  in  the  religious  element 
that  supported  the  bravery  of  the  men  in  the  different  instances 
just  cited. 

IV. 

THE  FATAL  BATTLE  OP  GILBOA. 

Although  in  the  period  of  Saul's  strength  we  find  mention 
made  of  many  victories,  even  over  the  peoples  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  to  the  north,  his  personal  weaknesses  had  broken 
his  power.  The  expulsion  of  David  from  his  court  had  meant 
to  Saul  not  merely  the  loss  of  probably  his  most  skillful  warrior, 
but  also  that  of  many  others  of  his  ablest  men,  several  hun- 
dreds of  whom  followed  David  when  he  went  into  the  South 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship    45 

Country  and  afterward  to  the  Philistines.  There  is  good 
reason  to  believe  that  this  defection  and  Saul's  gradual  loss 
of  popularity  were  influential  in  leading  the  Philistines  to 
renew  their  attacks  upon  Israel. 

According  to  the  records,  Achish,  the  king  of  Gath,  whose 
vassal  David  had  become,  had  so  great  confidence  in  David's 
fidelity  that  he  put  him  in  charge  of  his  bodyguard  and  deter- 
mined to  take  him  with  him  in  the  attacks  against  the  Israelites. 
The  other  leaders  of  the  Philistines,  however,  shrewdly  and 
probably  more  accurately,  thinking  that  David  at  the  time 
of  conflict  might  suddenly  determine  to  take  sides  with  Israel 
against  them,  all  insisted  upon  his  returning  to  the  country 
of  the  Philistines  and  not  accompanying  them  to  the  battle. 

As  the  Philistines  approached,  they  came  up  the  coast 
plains  west  of  Israel's  strongholds,  then  turned  eastward 
through  the  valley  of  Esdraelon,  with  probably  two  intentions : 
first,  to  cut  Saul  off  from  any  possible  relief  from  the  northern 
tribes,  and  in  the  second  place,  to  secure  for  themselves  a 
greater  freedom  for  manceuvering  with  their  horses  and  chariots 
in  case  the  battle  could  be  fought  in  the  lowlands. 

Saul,  however,  recognized  his  weakness,  and,  fearing  the 
possibility  of  defeat,  drew  up  his  men  with  his  experienced 
skill  on  the  rocky  heights  of  Gilboa,  where  he  would  have  first,  the 
advantage  of  forcing  the  Philistines  to  leave  their  chariots 
and  horses  and  meet  his  men  on  foot,  and  second,  the  ad- 
vantage, no  slight  one  in  those  days  of  hand-to-hand  conflicts, 
of  an  attack  from  the  higher  level. 

In  his  doubt  and  fear  regarding  the  coming  battle,  he  natur- 
ally, as  was  his  custom,  consulted  the  priests  and  besought 
the  oracles  of  Jehovah  for  signs  of  victory.  Probably  his 
priests  shared  his  doubts  for  he  obtained  no  response.  With 
his  superstitious  attitude  of  mind  he  turned,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  to  the  witch  of  Endor,  going  to  her  in  disguise  and  asking 
for  judgment  on  the  events  of  the  morrow.  Her  decision  over- 
whelmed him  with  despair,  and  it  took  her  persuasions  and 
those  of  his  followers  to  convince  him  that  he  should  take 
food  and  prepare  for  the  battle.  Like  the  brave  man,  however, 
that  he  had  always  been,  he  and  his  sons  stood  firm  in  the 
battle,  while  most  of  their  followers  turned  in  dismay  and 
fled,  pursued  and  slaughtered  by  the  oncoming  Philistines. 
His  three  sons,  Jonathan,  Abinadab,  and  Malchishua,  fell, 


46  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

slain  in  his  presence,  and  he  himself  was  sorely  wounded  by 
the  archers.  Knowing  the  barbarous  treatment  that  he  might 
expect  from  his  foes,  seeing  that  all  hope  was  gone,  like  the 
Roman  Antony  centuries  later,  he  first  besought  his  armor- 
bearer  to  slay  him.  When  the  latter  refused,  he  fell  on  his  own 
sword  and  his  armorbearer  immediately  followed  his  example. 
The  acts  of  the  Philistines  in  stripping  him  of  his  armor, 
and  fastening  his  body  with  those  of  his  sons  on  the  wall  of 
Bethshan  showed  clearly  how  accurate  was  Saul's  judgment 
regarding  the  treatment  that  he  might  anticipate  from  his 
foes. 

A  pleasing  token  of  grateful  remembrance  of  Saul's  generous 
and  successful  bravery  lights  up  the  last  tragic  scene  in  his 
career.  As  will  be  recalled,  the  Ammonites  had  threatened 
in  the  early  days  all  the  men  of  Jabesh  in  Gilead  with  the 
loss  of  the  right  eye,  when  Saul's  vigorous  attack  destroyed 
the  Ammonites  and  saved  the  Jabeshites.  In  memory  of  that 
day  they  marched  from  their  eastern  home  all  night,  took 
the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  from  the  wall  of  Bethshan, 
carried  them  back  to  Jabesh,  held  ceremonial  laments,  and 
then  buried  them  under  the  famous  tamarisk  tree  near  the 
city,  and  fasted  seven  days  in  their  honor. 

The  life  of  the  impetuous  warrior  king  was  ended,  and  with  his 
death  went  also  the  liberty  of  the  Israelites.  For  nearly  a 
decade,  under  Saul's  weakling  son  and  successor,  whose  armies 
were  led  by  Saul's  chief  captain  Abner,  the  northern  tribes 
were  vassals  of  the  Philistines.  The  presumption  is  also  that 
for  some  years  David,  as  leader  of  Judah  and  the  southern 
tribes,  paid  tribute  to  the  Philistines. 

Saul's  services,  however,  cannot  be  overlooked.  Out  of  a 
group  of  disconnected,  warring  tribes  he  had  made  and  for 
some  years  had  maintained  a  single  nation  that,  however 
loosely  connected  in  many  ways,  acted  together  in  times  of 
emergency.  Although  eventually  he  fell  before  his  foreign 
foes,  it  was  still  Saul's  prowess  and  his  strength  as  a  leader 
that  made  David's  later  successful  career  possible. 

Explain  how  Saul's  visit  to  the  medium  of  Endor  may  have 
contributed  toward  his  defeat  in  battle.  In  your  judgment, 
had  David  accompanied  the  Philistines  to  the  battle,  would 
he  have  fought  for  or  against  Saul?  On  which  side  ought 
he  to  have  fought?  What  reasons  have  you  for  thinking  that 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  Self-Control  in  Statesmanship    47 

Saul's  treatment  of  David  led  to  his  own  destruction?  Work 
out  your  own  plan,  as  far  as  possible  in  detail,  for  a  careful 
study  of  Saul's  life. 

V. 

DAVID'S  EULOGY  OP  SAUL  AND  His  WORK. 

The  generous  and  noble  character  of  David  is  seen  in  his 
reception  of  the  news  of  Saul's  defeat  and  death.  Though 
the  battle  of  Gilboa  opened  David's  way  to  the  kingship  of 
Judah,  and  eventually  to  the  rule  of  all  Israel,  and  although 
David,  with  his  clear  insight  into  political  conditions,  must 
have  forecast,  at  any  rate  in  hope,  this  future,  when  the  man 
from  Saul's  camp  came  and  reported  that  the  people  fled  from 
the  battle,  that  many  of  the  soldiers  had  fallen,  and  that 
Saul  and  Jonathan,  his  son,  were  dead,  "  David  took  hold  of 
his  clothes  and  tore  them,  and  all  the  men  who  were  with  him 
did  likewise,  and  they  mourned  and  wept  and  fasted  until 
evening  for  Saul  and  for  Jonathan,  his  son,  and  for  the  people 
of  Jehovah  and  for  the  house  of  Israel  because  they  had  fallen 
by  the  sword."  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  David's 
grief  was  sincere  and  heartfelt.  Jonathan  was  his  most  in- 
timate friend  and  sworn  brother,  while  Saul  in  his  earlier 
days  had  been  his  patron  and  friend,  whose  good  qualities 
David  could  not  fail  to  discern  and  remember,  even  though 
he  could  not  overlook  his  weaknesses.  It  was  natural  that 
he  should  mourn  them  together.  He  sang  in  their  honor  a 
noble  requiem  that  has  been  preserved  to  the  present  day. 
The  singers  of  Israel,  like  the  European  bards  of  later  days, 
composed  their  own  songs,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  believing 
that  David's  ode  of  sorrow  comes  in  practically  its  original 
form  from  the  lips  of  the  warrior  poet.  This  dirge  has  been 
characterized  as  follows: 

"The  artistic  beauty  of  the  poem  is  unsurpassed.  It  opens 
with  a  stanza  in  the  quick  two-beat  measure,  which  rises  in 
the  second  stanza  to  the  three-beat,  and  in  the  third  to  the 
four-beat  measure,  which  is  maintained  throughout  the  song, 
until  the  last  refrain  is  introduced,  giving  the  effect  of  a  final 
sob.  In  the  first  stanza  the  nation  is  called  upon  to  join  in 
the  lamentation,  in  the  second  the  cruel  exultation  of  the  Philis- 
tines is  viewed  with  horror,  and  in  the  third,  nature  and  espe- 
cially the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  th«  P^PTI^  of  the  disastrous 


48  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

battle,  are  called  upon  to  join  in  the  universal  lamentation. 
In  the  next  two  stanzas  the  courage,  the  prowess  and  the  virtues 
of  Saul  and  Jonathan  are  powerfully  presented.  The  women 
of  Israel,  who  led  in  the  ancient  lamentations,  are  reminded  of 
what  Saul  has  done  for  them  and  the  nation.  The  culmina- 
tion of  the  poem  is  reached  in  the  pathetic  stanza  in  which 
David  protests  his  deep  love  for  Jonathan  and  voices  his 
own  bitter  sorrow." 

David's  relief  at  the  removal  of  fear  of  Saul's  hatred  must 
have  been  great.  He  could  now  safely  return  to  his  own  people. 
His  life  opened  before  him;  his  heart  must  have  leaped  with 
ambition.  Leaving  the  country  of  the  Philistines,  with  his 
usual  forethought  and  tact  he  turned  to  Judah  and  the  southern 
tribes,  who,  in  the  circumstances,  quite  naturally  called  him 
to  rule  over  them,  while  he  himself  must  have  been  looking 
forward  and  planning  for  the  eventual  leadership  of  all  Israel. 
But  with  all  this  in  prospect,  his  love  for  Jonathan,  his  sym- 
pathetic heart,  his  insight  into  character,  his  great-souled 
nature  led  him  to  feel  towards  Saul  pity  rather  than  anger 
or  hate.  He  recognized  Saul's  bravery  and  skill  and  real 
services  to  Israel,  so  that  when  his  tragic  fate  overcame  him  on 
the  heights  of  Gilboa,  David's  lament  was  sincere  and  genuine. 

Could  David  be  sincere  in  his  grief  over  the  death  of  Saul 
and  still  feel  glad  of  the  personal  opportunities  which  his 
death  afforded?  Is  there  any  religious  element  to  be  found 
in  David's  dirge  over  Saul  and  Jonathan?  Does  this  dirge 
sound  to  you  more  like  a  heathen  or  like  a  Hebrew  poem? 
Point  out  the  elements  of  beauty,  artistic  or  moral,  in  the  poem. 
In  what  respects  are  our  modern  funeral  customs  an  improve- 
ment upon  those  of  the  Hebrews?  Or  inferior? 

VI. 

THE  ESSENTIALS  OF  EFFECTIVE  STATESMANSHIP. 

A  little  reflection  regarding  the  characters  of  Israel's  first 
two  kings,  Saul  and  David,  gives  one  a  clear  conception  of 
the  qualities  required  to  make  a  person  an  effective  and  suc- 
cessful statesman. 

A  man  may  be  a  brave,  and  on  the  whole  effective,  fighter 
without  great  mental  ability,  but  even  in  hand-to-hand  con- 
flicts a  quick  mind  is  of  great  advantage  and  no  one  can  be 


The  Need  of  Breadth  and  SelJ '-Control  in  Statesmanship    49 

a  successful  general  without  a  broad-minded  intelligence  which 
enables  him  to  grasp  as  a  whole  plans  of  attack  and  defense 
on  a  great  scale.  In  later  times  and  in  more  complex  societies, 
when  the  business  of  the  statesman  is  not  so  much  warfare 
as  finance,  the  development  of  economic  resources,  the  pro- 
tection of  the  industrial  welfare  of  a  people,  intelligence,  in- 
tellectual training  and  manifold  knowledge  become  even 
more  essential. 

The  contrast  of  the  two  characters,  Saul  and  David,  bring 
into  high  relief  the  grave  necessity  of  self-control  and  cool 
judgment  on  the  part  of  the  ruler.  A  man  who  cannot  control 
his  temper,  a  man  who  will  not  maintain  at  least  the  semblance 
of  patience  in  times  of  emergency,  or  one  who  will  not  restrain 
his  acts  until  he  can  foresee  their  results,  is  sure  to  fail  in  any 
field  of  activity,  but  especially  in  a  position  as  leader  where 
self-control  is  the  prime  consideration  in  enabling  one  to  con- 
trol others.  Whether  David  or  Solomon  or  some  other  of  the 
wise  men  of  ancient  Israel  was  the  author  of  the  proverb, 
"He  who  ruleth  his  own  spirit  is  greater  than  he  that  taketh 
a  city,"  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  its  essential  truth. 

Closely  related  to  the  characteristics  just  mentioned  is  the 
power  of  insight  into  character  and  the  ability  to  understand 
the  feelings  and  wishes  of  one's  people.  This  gift  of  under- 
standing the  popular  will  is  something  different  from  mere 
intelligence,  something  quite  apart  from  ordinary  knowledge 
that  can  be  acquired  by  study.  It  implies  a  sympathy  with 
one's  neighbors,  and  apparently  an  almost  intuitive  touch 
with  people  of  all  classes  and  types  in  society.  The  men  who 
have  possessed  this  gift  are  not  always  the  men  who  are  the 
best  fitted  to  plan  the  work  of  a  great  state,  but  this  power  is 
of  the  greatest  service  in  putting  plans  into  effect  and  often 
in  knowing  what  plans  are  possible.  It  is  generally  conceded 
that,  although  Jefferson  lacked  the  breadth  of  intellect  and 
original  creative  power  of  Hamilton,  in  his  understanding  of 
the  American  people  and  the  way  to  reach  their  sympathies 
he  was  greatly  Hamilton's  superior.  Lincoln's  greatness  as 
a  statesman  was  due  perhaps  as  much  to  this  quality  of  sym- 
pathetic insight  as  to  any  other  of  his  great  gifts.  In  this 
respect  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the  sharp  contrast  between 
Saul  and  David  and  to  recognize  how  much  of  David's  success 
was  due  to  this  gift  of  understanding. 


50  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Closely  allied  with  this,  of  course,  is  tact  in  dealing  with 
individuals  and  social  groups,  whether  foes  or  friends.  These 
qualities  often  belong  to  a  boss  as  well  as  to  a  statesman, 
to  a  man  who  is  a  political  manipulator  for  selfish  ends,  as 
well  as  to  a  patriotic  leader,  but  the  qualities  are  important 
for  a  statesman  of  the  highest  type. 

Beyond  all  these  personal  gifts  must  be  emphasized,  of 
course,  patriotism  —  unselfish  devotion  to  one's  country's  wel- 
fare. All  personal  gifts  of  whatever  nature,  if  turned  to  selfish 
ends,  fall  short  of  effective  statesmanship,  though  unselfish 
patriotism,  unaccompanied  by  the  personal  characteristics 
mentioned,  is  not  in  itself  enough  to  make  any  public  man 
effective. 

In  these  later  days,  when  personal  religion  seems  to  have 
no  longer  the  hold  upon  the  popular  mind  that  it  had  in  the 
earlier  days,  it  is  of  importance  to  note  how  great  was  the 
influence  of  devotion  to  Jehovah  in  the  lives  of  both  Saul 
and  David.  Although,  we  have  seen,  Saul's  religion  often 
degenerated  into  mere  superstition,  so  that  it  was  a  source  of 
weakness  rather  than  strength,  David's  religion  seems  never 
to  have  been  a  source  of  weakness,  and  in  many  instances, 
to  have  been  a  source  of  strength.  Beyond  all  doubt,  any 
man's  conception  of  his  relation  to  his  God  cannot  fail  to 
affect  most  profoundly  his  attitude  toward  his  country  and 
toward  the  welfare  of  its  people.  Without  any  ascription  of 
a  miraculous  or  supernatural  influence  in  the  lives  of  men,  it 
would  still  remain  true  that  any  statesman's  views  of  his 
relation  to  God  must  color  materially  his  plans  of  working 
and  living  and  must  thus  become  an  important  element  in 
the  effectiveness  of  whatever  he  undertakes  in  behalf  of  his 
people.  Aside  from  the  reaction  upon  his  own  personality,  the 
effect  which  the  statesman's  religious  views  produce  directly 
upon  his  people  must  also  be  considered.  The  most  civilized 
peoples  of  the  present  day,  although  their  conceptions  of 
religion  are  greatly  different  from  those  of  ancient  Israel, 
are,  nevertheless,  profound  believers  in  religion  and  in  the 
thought  that  the  most  successful  work  in  statesmanship  can- 
not be  combined  with  a  faithless,  selfish,  ignoble,  corrupt 
character.  The  belief  is  also  general  that  the  surest  guarantee 
of  the  noblest  character  is  an  absolutely  sincere,  reasonable, 
tolerant,  devout  religious  belief. 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  51 

Analyze  as  best  you  can  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
of  statesmanship  mentioned  in  this  section  the  characters 
of  Presidents  Wilson,  Taft,  Roosevelt,  McKinley  and  Cleve- 
land. Distinguish  the  boss  from  the  statesman.  Which 
of  the  qualities  named  above  does  the  successful  boss  possess 
and  which  does  he  lack? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Hebrew   Mourning   Customs.     Hastings,   Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
III,  pp.  453-455;  Kent,  Songs,  Hymns  and  Prayers  of  the  Old  Testament. 
pp.  16,  17. 

(2)  Read  carefully  an  account  of  the  life  and  services  of  Thomas  Paine, 
whose  writings  had  much  to  do  in  securing  American  independence.     Judge 
impartially  the  effect  that  his  religious  views  had  upon  his  life  and  service 
to  his  country, 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  RIGHT  AND  WRONG  OF  IMPERIAL  EXPANSION. 
DAVID  AS  AN  EMPIRE  BUILDER. — II  Sam.  2 — 8;  23:  8 — 39. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  121-146. 
Croly,  Chap.  IV;  Lowell,  Chaps.  VII,  VIII. 

Then  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  came  to  David  to  Hebron  and  said,  See 
we  are  your  bone  and  your  flesh.  In  times  past  when  Saul  was  king 
over  us,  it  was  you  who  led  out  and  brought  in  Israel,  and  Jehovah  hath 
said  to  you,  'Thou  shalt  be  shepherd  of  my  people  Israel,  and  thou  shalt 
be  prince  over  Israel.' — II  Sam.  5: 1,  2. 

And  David  kept  on  growing  greater,  for  Jehovah  of  hosts  was  with 
him. — II  Sam.  5: 10. 

Ez  f er  war,  I  call  it  murder — 

Ther  you  hev  it  plain  and  flat; 
I  don't  want  to  go  no  furder 

Than  my  Testyment  fer  that. — Lowell. 

The  arms  are  fair 

When  the  intent  for  bearing  them  is  just. — Shakespeare. 
Nothing  except  a  battle  lost  can  be  half  so  melancholy  as  a  battle  won. — 
Duke  of  Wellington. 

THE  DECLINE  OF  SAUL'S  KINGDOM. 

After  the  tragic  fate  of  Saul  and  his  elder  sons  had  been 
decided  on  Mount  Gilboa  the  way  seemed  clear  for  David  to 


52  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

become  in  due  course  of  time  the  ruler  of  all  Israel.  His  per- 
sonal popularity  and  also  the  care  that  he  had  taken  to  court 
the  friendly  feelings  of  the  southern  tribes  received  their 
immediate  reward;  while  the  friendship  of  the  northern  tribes 
was  gradually  won  over  by  the  skillful  tactics  that  he  had 
employed  throughout  his  career. 

Immediately  after  the  news  of  Saul's  death  had  been  re- 
ceived, David  turned  towards  the  south  and  went  to  Hebron 
taking  with  him  his  two  wives.  One  was  Ahinoam  the  Jezreel- 
itess,  through  the  marriage  with  whom  he  had  strengthened  his 
position  with  one  of  the  southern  tribes.  The  other  was 
Abigail  through  whose  intercession  he  had  spared  the  life 
of  Nabal  and  whom  after  Nabal's  death  he  had  himself  married, 
acquiring  thereby  wealth  and  influence  as  well  as  a  wife  of 
great  ability  and  charm.  As  was  learned  in  the  account 
given  of  his  dealings  with  Nabal,  David  had  for  years,  while 
living  as  outlaw,  protected  the  flocks  and  herds  of  the  southern 
tribes  against  the  attacks  of  the  men  of  the  desert  and  had 
thereby  won  their  friendship.  It  was  not  difficult  for  them, 
as  soon  as  they  heard  of  the  death  of  Saul,  to  choose  for  their 
leader  and  king  a  man  from  among  themselves  who  had  already 
won  their  affection  through  his  protection  of  their  interests  and 
his  personal  ability  and  in  whose  ranks  many  of  their  own  people 
were  already  fighting. 

We  need  not  question  the  sincerity  of  David's  appreciation 
of  the  noble  spirit  of  the  Jabeshites,  even  though  he  knew 
that  his  recognition  of  their  loyal  act  would  serve  also  to 
strengthen  him  with  the  northern  tribes.  As  soon  as  he 
heard  of  their  action  he  sent  messengers  to  them  saying:  "May 
you  be  blessed  by  Jehovah  because  you  have  shown  this  kind- 
ness to  your  leader  Saul  and  have  buried  him.  Even  so  may 
Jehovah  show  kindness  and  truth  to  you;  and  I  also  will  do 
well  by  you  because  you  have  done  this  thing.  Now,  therefore, 
be  courageous  and  valiant;  for  Saul,  your  leader,  is  dead, 
and  the  house  of  Judah  has  anointed  me  king  over  them." 
It  was  not,  however,  until  years  later  that  David  was  to  become 
king  also  of  the  northern  tribes.  Abner,  Saul's  ablest  captain 
after  Jonathan,  had  survived  the  battle  of  Gilboa.  As  com- 
mander of  Saul's  army  he  had  selected  Ishbaal,  a  younger 
son  of  Saul,  and  had  him  set  up  as  king  over  all  of  the  northern 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  53 

tribes,  and  had  established  the  new  capital  east  of  the  Jordan 
at  Mahanaim. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  a  conflict  between  David  and  the 
followers  of  Ishbaal  soon  began.  Apparently  both  Ishbaal 
and  David,  although  acting  independently  of  each  other, 
were  paying  tribute  to  the  Philistines,  and  not  until  some  years 
later,  after  David  had  become  king  of  all  Israel,  was  he  able 
to  throw  off  the  Philistine  yoke. 

According  to  the  accounts  given  us,  the  fate  of  the  divided 
kingdom  and  of  the  separate  rulers  was  determined,  as  is  so 
often  the  case  in  history,  by  the  private  personal  passions, 
loves  and  hatreds  of  individual  actors.  Ishbaal,  a  weak  king, 
was  practically  under  the  domination  of  his  great  leader  Abner, 
while  David,  though  a  strong  character  and  one  who  eventually 
controlled,  still  found  it  necessary  to  deal  tactfully  with  his 
own  war  chief,  Joab,  a  man  of  marked  military  ability,  but 
of  narrow  mind  and  petty  jealousies. 

In  a  battle  fought  between  Abner  and  Joab  and  their  fol- 
lowers near  the  Pool  of  Gibeon,  after  an  exhibition  duel  between 
twelve  young  champions  from  each  of  the  two  sides,  in  which 
apparently  all  were  killed,  the  forces  of  Abner  were  defeated 
by  the  men  of  David.  In  the  retreat  that  followed,  Joab's 
younger  brother,  Asahel,  a  fleet  runner,  pursuing  Abner  alone, 
was  slain.  Though  the  older  and  more  skillful  warrior  had 
warned  him  and  offered  to  let  him  escape  and  even  to  take  with 
him  some  plunder,  Abner  at  length  was  forced  to  kill  him 
in  self-defense,  thereby  creating  a  blood  feud  with  Joab  that 
eventually  brought  dire  results.  The  battle  ended  indeed  by 
Abner  suggesting  a  truce  to  prevent  a  continuation  of  what 
he  considered  a  civil  war;  but,  although  the  battle  ended, 
the  war  dragged  on.  Meantime  David  continually  grew  stronger 
and  the  followers  of  Ishbaal  fewer  and  weaker.  Abner  had 
apparently  for  some  time  felt  that  it  would  be  wiser  for  the 
forces  to  unite  as  one  kingdom  under  David.  At  length 
Ishbaal,  by  reproving  Abner  for  having  taken  to  himself 
Rizpah,  who  had  formerly  been  a  concubine  of  Saul,  offended 
Abner,  who  considered  rightly  that  he  himself  was  the  actual 
ruler,  although  Ishbaal  held  the  title.  In  consequence  Abner 
sent  word  to  David  that  he  would  undertake  to  persuade  the 
northern  tribes  to  submit.  David  responded  favorably,  making 
first  the  one  condition,  that  before  any  negotiations  were  formally 


54  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

taken  up  there  should  be  returned  to  him  the  wife  of  his 
youth,  Michal,  the  daughter  of  Saul,  whom  the  king  had 
given  to  him  in  return  for  his  victory  over  the  Philistines.  It 
was  she  who  had  saved  his  life  when  Saul  turned  against  him, 
but  whom  Saul  later,  after  the  expulsion  of  David  from  his 
kingdom,  had  given  in  marriage  to  another  man  named  Paltiel. 
This  occurrence  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  customs  of 
the  time  as  well  as  of  the  threads  of  personal  feelings  and 
interests  that  mold  the  welfare  of  nations.  Michal  seems 
to  have  nothing  to  say  in  either  case  regarding  her  fate.  She 
had  apparently  been  loyal  to  David  and  had  protected  him 
against  her  father  even  at  great  risk  to  herself.  She  had 
likewise  won  the  love  of  her  second  husband,  for  when  she 
was  taken  from  him  by  Abner  at  David's  suggestion,  he  fol- 
lowed her,  weeping  as  he  went,  until  Abner  turned  him  back. 
Later  we  find  Michal  criticizing  David  most  scornfully  for 
his  dancing  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant  when  it  was  brought 
up  to  Jerusalem,  and  in  turn  being  re*buked  by  David  whose 
affection  for  her  had  apparently  been  supplanted  by  that 
felt  for  another  wife,  for  his  retort  is  severe  and  sarcastic. 
The  narrator  adds  that  Michal,  the  daughter  of  Saul,  had 
no  child  to  the  day  of  her  death.  Had  she  perhaps  inherited 
some  of  the  jealous  disposition  of  her  father? 

Abner  and  David,  in  the  absence  of  Joab,  David's  military 
commander,  made  arrangements  for  the  transfer  of  Abner's 
loyalty  from  Ishbaal  to  David  with  the  expectation  that  the 
northern  tribes  in  consequence  would  make  David  the  ruler 
of  all  Israel.  But  Joab  on  his  return  followed  Abner  and  treacher- 
ously slew  him.  In  thus  avenging  the  death  of  his  brother 
Asahel,  Joab  nearly  ruined  the  plans  that  David  his  king  had 
made  for  the  welfare  of  the  nation. 

This  treacherous  murder  would  have  prevented  absolutely 
the  uniting  of  the  kingdom  had  not  David  with  his  customary 
tact,  as  well  as  with  sincerity  of  feeling,  immediately  repudiated 
all  knowledge  of  Joab's  deed,  giving  to  Abner  a  state  funeral, 
sorrowing  for  him  and  fasting  as  for  the  death  of  a  royal  brother, 
while  he  likewise  cursed  Joab  as  a  guilty  murderer  whom  he 
compelled  to  take  part  in  the  funeral  ceremony. 

Two  of  Ishbaal's  treacherous  captains,  hearing  of  Abner's 
death,  sought  the  house  of  Ishbaal,  murdered  him  and  brought 
his  head  to  David  thinking  thus  to  win  the  king's  favor.  Here 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  55 

again,  doubtless  in  part  from  sincere  abhorrence  of  the  treacher- 
ous deed  and  doubtless  also  with  the  knowledge  of  the  good 
effect  that  would  be  produced  upon  the  northern  tribes,  David 
ordered  the  immediate  execution  of  the  murderers  and  the 
exposure  of  their  bodies  as  a  warning  to  the  people,  while 
Ishbaal's  head  was  buried  with  all  honor-  in  Abner's  grave 
at  Hebron. 

The  total  result,  however,  of  Ishbaal's  interference  with 
Abner  and  of  the  political  circumstances  of  the  time  was 
that  all  the  northern  tribes  came  to  David  in  Hebron  and 
asked  him  to  take  the  kingship  of  united  Israel,  saying  that 
in  the  days  of  Saul  he  had  been  the  warrior  who  had  led  them 
out  to  battle  and  to  whom  Jehovah  had  said,  "Thou  shalt 
be  the  shepherd  of  my  people  Israel  and  thou  shalt  be  prince 
over  Israel." 

Do  you  approve  of  David's  treatment  of  Joab?  Did  not 
Joab  usually  have  David's  welfare  at  heart?  How  far  was 
Abner  justified  in  his  treatment  of  Ishbaal?  What  in  your 
judgment  was  Abner's  chief  motive,  —  personal  pique  or 
regard  for  the  welfare  of  his  people? 

II. 

THROWING  OFF  THE  PHILISTINE  YOKE. 

The  success  of  the  Philistines  in  overthrowing  Saul  in  the 
great  battle  of  Gilboa  and  the  relative  weakness  of  both  David 
and  Ishbaal  in  the  succeeding  years  had  made  these  foes  of  Israel 
dominant  throughout  southern  Palestine.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  both  David  and  Ishbaal  paid  tribute  to  them  for  a 
time  and  were  considered  their  vassals.  David's  growing 
strength,  however,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Philistine  leaders  of 
his  ability  naturally  tended  to  make  them  fearful  of  his  success. 
In  consequence,  when  they  heard  that  David  had  been  anointed 
king  over  Israel  as  well  as  over  Judah,  they  decided  to  move 
against  him.  It  is  not  improbable  that  David  himself  in- 
stituted the  revolt,  for  the  northern  tribes  looked  to  him  as 
their  liberator.  The  accounts  of  the  war  are  brief  and  incom- 
plete. It  is  probable  that  it  lasted  for  a  number  of  years. 
At  first  David  remained  in  the  highlands,  making  his  defense 
from  his  old  stronghold,  the  cave  of  Adullam  and  the  heights 
around  about,  and  attacking  the  Philistines  as  opportunity 


56  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

offered.  Later,  as  he  grew  stronger,  sometimes  by  open 
battle,  sometimes  by  strategy  that  enabled  him  to  strike 
them  unawares,  he  succeeded  in  beating  them  back;  and 
finally  in  two  great  victories  on  the  plain  south  of  Jerusalem 
he  completely  won  his  independence  from  them,  driving  them 
back  as  far  as  Gezer,  their  large  fortified  city  on  the  border 
of  the  western  plain. 

Consider  the  economic  gain  to  David's  kingdom  from  these 
victories.  The  political  gain.  The  military  gain.  How  far 
has  the  United  States  gained  in  political  and  military  strength 
from  the  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands?  From  the 
acquisition  of  the  Philippines? 

III. 
THE  UNIFICATION  OF  ALL  ISRAEL. 

David  completed  his  conquest  of  the  ancient  land  of  Canaan 
by  attacking  the  Jebusites  whose  hold  upon  Jerusalem  had 
never  yet  been  shaken.  The  situation  and  the  fortifications 
were  of  such  strength  that  the  enemy  had  little  fear  of  an 
attack,  thinking  that  even  the  lame  and  the  blind  would  be 
sufficient  to  hold  the  city  against  any  assaulting  force;  but 
by  sending  some  of  his  strong  warriors  up  through  the  water 
courses  David  succeeded  in  gaining  a  foothold  and  eventually 
in  capturing  the  ancient  fortress. 

Jerusalem  was  peculiarly  well  fitted  to  become  the  new 
capital  of  the  united  kingdom.  It  was  in  the  first  place  a  city 
of  almost  impregnable  strength  both  by  virtue  of  its  natural 
situation  and  of  the  new  fortifications  and  encircling  wall 
and  towers  built  by  David.  Furthermore,  its  situation  between 
the  land  of  Judah  and  that  occupied  by  the  northern  tribes, 
meant  that  David's  residence  there  would  not  arouse  factional 
jealousies.  It  was  an  advantage  that  a  man  of  David's  tact 
would  not  overlook. 

David's  knowledge  of  human  nature  and  of  his  people  led 
him  further  to  see  the  importance  of  making  this  capital  city, 
so  far  as  possible,  also  the  religious  center  of  his  kingdom. 
Since  the  earlier  victories  over  the  Philistines,  the  Israelites 
had  regained  control  of  the  ark  of  Jehovah,  which  had  remained 
in  Baal-Judah.  When  David  had  finally  established  his 
residence  in  Jerusalem  and  had  built  there  a  palace,  he  made 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  57 

provision  for  bringing  up  the  ark  and  thus  making  Jerusalem 
pre-eminently  the  center  of  the  national  worship  of  Jehovah, 
though  it  was  not  until  centuries  later  that  the  local  shrines 
in  the  different  towns  and  cities  were  abolished.  The  ark 
was  transferred  with  great  ceremony,  David  assembling  all 
the  chosen  men  of  Israel,  some  thirty  thousand,  besides  the 
hordes  of  unarmed  people  who  wished  to  accompany  him,  in 
order  to  give  the  ceremony  the  greatest  impressiveness  pos- 
sible. The  accidental  death  of  one  of  the  attendants  at  the 
moment  that  he  happened  to  touch  the  ark  to  prevent  it  from 
falling,  was  at  first  interpreted  as  a  signal  of  Jehovah's  dis- 
pleasure, and  the  ark  remained  outside  the  city  in  the  home 
of  one  of  David's  Philistine  bodyguards  for  a  considerable 
period,  until  the  prosperity  of  the  guard  seemed  to  make  it 
clear  that  Jehovah's  favor  had  been  restored. 

At  Jerusalem  the  ark  was  deposited  in  a  tent  especially 
prepared.  Sacrifices  and  feasts  and  rich  offerings  were  pre- 
sented by  David,  and  gifts  were  distributed  among  the  people 
in  commemoration  and  celebration  of  the  entrance  of  this 
symbol  of  God's  favor,  which  had  been  brought  by  the  people 
from  Mount  Sinai,  into  the  new  capital  of  the  kingdom.  With 
the  people  united  now  in  loyalty  to  their  ruler  and  in  religious 
sentiment  as  well,  and  with  an  army  loyal,  strong,  and  skilled 
in  warfare,  it  was  natural  that  David  should  enter  upon  the 
career  of  conquest  which  made  Israel  one  of  the  great  states 
of  southwestern  Asia. 

Compare  the  geographical  and  political  causes  which  have 
made  great  capitals,  Jerusalem,  Berlin,  Washington,  Peking, 
Paris  and  Rome.  Compare  the  political,  economic,  social, 
artistic,  or  religious  influences  which  these  cities  have  exercised 
upon  their  respective  countries  and  upon  the  world. 


IV. 

DAVID'S  REASONS  FOR  BUILDING  AN  EMPIRE. 

David's  experience  not  only  with  the  Philistines  but  also 
with  the  various  tribes  of  Israel  had  made  it  clear  to  him  that 
the  only  safety  for  his  kingdom  lay  in  a  strong  military  power, 
and,  considering  the  strength  and  habits  of  the  neighboring 
nations,  he  was  perhaps  right.  The  same  argument  has  been 


58  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

used  for  many  years  by  the  German  Empire,  and  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  a  stronger  navy  for  the  United  States. 

Furthermore  the  military  power  of  any  country  is  dependent 
not  only  upon  the  strength  of  its  army  and  navy,  but  to  no 
less  degree  upon  its  financial  strength.  David  was  far-sighted 
enough  and  had  sufficient  experience  in  war  and  statesmanship 
to  know  that  he  must  be  regularly  provided  with  supplies  for 
his  army  and  with  economic  resources  for  the  development  of 
his  kingdom.  By  controlling  the  people  on  the  borders  of 
Judah  and  the  outlying  tribes  of  Israel  he  was  securing  not 
merely  additional  territory  for  agricultural  development,  but 
also,  what  was  perhaps  of  still  greater  consequence,  he  was 
obtaining  control  of  the  trade  routes  between  Egypt,  Baby- 
lonia, Assyria  and  those  running  north  through  Damascus  and 
farther  westward  on  to  the  territory  now  known  as  Asia  Minor. 
Through  the  facilities  afforded  by  these  trade  routes  he  opened 
the  way  for  the  commercial  development  of  Palestine,  which 
was  later  carried  to  a  much  higher  degree  by  his  successor 
Solomon. 

Moreover,  David  himself  represented  the  noblest  product 
of  the  literary  and  artistic  culture  of  his  race,  as  well  as  the 
civilization  of  war  and  conquest.  By  securing  control  of  the 
territory  of  the  Canaanites  in  the  lowlands,  he  and  his  people 
were  brought  into  immediate  touch  with  the  highest  material 
civilization  of  the  period.  The  Hebrew  race  of  that  day, 
and  especially  the  tribe  of  Judah,  knew  little  of  the  refinements 
of  modern  civilization.  They  were  a  hill  people  relying  chiefly 
upon  the  growth  of  their  flocks  and  herds  for  their  material 
welfare,  and  although  they  possessed  the  noblest  morality  and 
religion  of  their  day,  in  the  refinements  of  civilization  they  were 
doubtless  very  inferior  to  the  people  of  the  lowlands  whom 
they  had  conquered,  and  especially  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Egypt  and  Babylon.  David  was  too  able  a  man  not  to  be 
conscious  of  the  advantages  that  would  come  from  more 
intimate  association  with  the  surrounding  peoples. 

Moreover,  for  any  strong  man,  as  well  as  for  any  growing 
nation,  mastery  of  others,  the  sense  of  power,  the  love  and 
will  to  control  are  among  the  dominant  ambitions.  As  soon 
as  the  opportunity  offered,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  a  king 
like  David,  leader  of  an  invading,  aggressive  people,  would 
wish  to  extend  the  boundaries  of  his  kingdom  so  as  to  become 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  59 

the  ruler  of  a  great,  wealthy,  influential  empire,  instead  of 
being  merely  the  head  of  a  small,  even  a  vassal  kingdom, 
as  for  some  years  Judah  had  been. 

Compare  the  motives  of  David  with  those  of  King  William 
of  Prussia  from  the  years  1860  to  1875.  With  those  of  England 
in  India  and  Egypt.  According  to  the  biblical  accounts, 
David  was  tolerant  of  the  religious  beliefs  and  practices  of 
the  Canaanites  among  whom  the  various  communities  worshiped 
each  its  own  separate  Baal.  Do  you  approve  of  this  religious 
toleration?  Why? 

V. 

METHODS  OF  CONQUEST. 

The  great  European  wars  of  the  present  day  often  lead  us 
to  wonder  whether  there  has  been  any  advance  whatever  in 
civilization  within  historic  times.  The  changes  that  have 
been  wrought  by  new  inventions,  increasing  the  efficiency  of 
weapons  of  destruction,  seem  to  some  to  be  the  chief  improve- 
ments since  the  days  of  David,  although,  of  course,  economic 
reasons  and  the  earlier  stage  of  civilization  compelled  a  some- 
what different  method  of  civil  and  military  organization. 
King  David's  regular  army  apparently  consisted  of  only  his 
few  chosen  leaders  and  his  six  hundred  trained  fighting  men 
who  made  up  his  bodyguard.  We  read  that  among  the 
leaders  there  were  three  of  pre-eminent  ability,  and  that  fol- 
lowing them  were  thirty,  each  one  of  whom  was  able  to  slaughter 
his  opponents  by  the  score,  for  in  the  early  days  of  warfare 
personal  prowess  counted  far  more  than  at  the  present  time. 
Aside  from  these,  every  able-bodied  man  in  the  kingdom  was 
subject  to  call  in  time  of  need,  being  regularly  summoned  by 
their  tribal  and  local  leaders  who  fought  under  the  direction 
of  David's  chieftains.  Usually  during  the  winter  and  spring 
the  army  remained  at  home  attending  their  flocks  or  tilling 
their  fields.  The  campaigns  were  carried  on  after  the  harvest 
time  in  early  summer.  The  simple  habits  of  the  people  and 
this  method  of  fighting  enabled  David  to  carry  on  these 
wars  of  conquest  year  after  year  without  seriously  draining  the 
resources  of  his  kingdom.  This  was  done  the  more  readily 
because  the  subjugated  nations  were  compelled  to  pay  tribute, 
and  in  many  instances  great  numbers  of  the  able  bodied  were 
enslaved  and  forced  to  cultivate  the  soil. 


60  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

In  certain  cases  the  wars  were  begun  by  hostile  nations  that 
had  hoped  to  overwhelm  the  Hebrews;  in  other  cases  David 
himself  took  the  aggressive.  His  first  extensive  foreign  cam- 
paign was  apparently  against  the  Ammonites,  east  of  the 
Jordan,  the  war  being  incited  by  the  treatment  of  ambassadors 
from  David  who  were  insulted  in  ways  recognized  as  cruel, 
uncivilized  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of  war  even  of  those 
early1;  days.  Later  wars  with  tribes  to  the  north,  east  and 
south  extended  his  kingdom,  until  it  reached  from  the 
leighborhood  of  Damascus  on  the  north  to  the  eastern  arm 
>f  the  Red  Sea  on  the  south  and  from  the  Phoenicians  and 
'hilistines  on  the  west  to  the  desert  on  the  east,  a  territory 
nearly  twice  as  large  as  that  originally  occupied  by  the  Israelites. 

Frequently  the  wars  were  carried  on  with  extreme  cruelty. 
In  some  cases,  as  in  that  of  the  Moabites,  the  people  were  com- 
pletely subjugated,  as  many  as  two-thirds  of  them  being  put 
to  death  and  the  others  enslaved.  At  other  times  the  con- 
quered nations  were  left  largely  under  their  own  government, 
being  forced  merely  to  pay  tribute. 

In  practically  every  case  then,  as  well  as  now,  all  of  the 
contending  nations  felt  that  the  deity  was  on  their  side  — 
a  condition  of  affairs,  too,  much  more  easily  understood  then 
than  now,  for,  in  those  days,  each  tribe  had  its  own  patron 
god  upon  whom  it  felt  that  it  could  normally  rely,  while,  at 
the  present  time,  all  the  Christian  nations  apparently  call 
upon  the  same  God.  It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  narrow- 
ness and  self-conceit  of  most  individuals,  who  see  the  justice 
of  their  own  side  in  every  dispute  so  clearly  and  that  of  their 
opponent  so  dimly,  that  all  apparently  feel  conscientiously 
justified,  while  they  condemn  unqualifiedly  the  cause  of  their 
opponents. 

When  one  ancient  nation  conquered  another,  it  was  looked 
upon  simply  as  proof  that  the  god  of  the  victorious  people 
was  stronger  than  the  god  of  the  conquered.  The  weaker 
god,  however,  was  not  rejected  as  no  longer  worthy  of  reverence. 
The  subjugated  people  still  followed  their  own  god,  but 
they  often  added  to  this  the  worship  of  the  conquering  deity. 

Another  method  by  which  David  extended  his  kingdom  or 
confirmed  his  hold  upon  conquered  territory  was  by  marriage. 
We  have  already  seen  how  he  had  extended  his  wealth  and 
power  by  marrying  Abigail,  the  wife  of  Nabal  the  Carmelite, 


The  Right  and  Wrong  of  Imperial  Expansion  61 

and  had  won  the  favor  of  a  southern  tribe  by  his  marriage 
with  Ahinoam  the  Jezreelitess,  after  he  had  been  driven  out 
of  Saul's  kingdom.  Later,  he  took  other  wives;  for  example, 
he  married  the  daughter  of  Talmai  the  king  of  Geshur.  The 
same  custom  of  strengthening  by  marriage  the  political  power 
of  the  king  was  carried  to  a  still  greater  extent  by  Solomon, 
and  is  by  no  means  unknown  even  at  the  present  day. 

In  what  ways  do  the  royal  families  of  Europe  carry  out 
the  same  ideas  regarding  the  political  importance  and  use  of 
marriage?  What  is  a  morganatic  marriage?  What  is  its 
effect  regarding  the  right  of  succession  to  a  throne?  Cite 
modern  illustrations  among  rulers  and  wars  in  which  the 
barbarities  of  lust  and  cruelty  are  comparable  with  those  of 
King  David  in  his  treatment  of  conquered  peoples.  Discuss 
briefly  the  religious  element  in  the  wars  of  the  present  day 
from  (a)  the  viewpoint  of  religious  justification  for  war,  and 
(b)  the  viewpoint  of  conflicts  arising  from  differing  religious 
beliefs. 

VI. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  FOREIGN  CONQUEST. 

Practically  every  growing  nation  in  all  periods  of  history 
has  felt  itself  justified  in  demanding  room  for  expansion. 
Japan  at  the  present  time  is  said  to  be  looking  for  territory 
to  which  her  own  people  may  be  sent  as  settlers.  Germany 
for  hah7  a  century  has  been  seeking  colonies  in  which  to  expand. 
In  the  earlier  days  the  American  colonies,  and  afterwards  the 
States  on  the  Atlantic  Coast,  felt  that  it  was  necessary  for 
them  to  secure  territory  to  the  westward,  and  similar  feelings 
and  practices  are  almost  universal. 

The  sentiment  followed  seems  to  be  that  "the  earth  belongs 
to  him  who  makes  the  best  use  of  it,"  and  inasmuch  as  each 
powerful  nation  is  in  a  position  to  be  judge  in  its  own  cause, 
it  seems  to  be  often  a  contest  of  civilization  against  barbarism, 
in  which  usually  the  civilized  country  wins.  Civilized  peoples 
with  their  greater  skill  in  invention  and  their  better  practice 
in  organization,  are  usually  the  strongest,  so  that  in  the  ulti- 
mate analysis  the  justification  of  their  conquests  is  a  refined 
type  of  the  doctrine  that  might  makes  right.  Certain  excep- 
tions to  this  general  principle  are  found,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
ancient  Greeks,  where  the  more  highly  cultivated  people  was 


62  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

conquered  by  the  Romans  who,  though  on  a  lower  stage  of 
civilization,  were  nevertheless  able  to  absorb  so  much  of  the 
higher  culture  of  the  Greeks  that  the  union  of  the  two  seemed 
to  promote  rather  than  to  destroy  civilization.  A  somewhat 
similar  statement  may  be  made  with  reference  to  the  ancient 
Jews,  whose  religion  and  business  ability  has  permeated  the 
civilized  world,  even  though  as  a  separate  nation  they  ceased 
to  exist  many  centuries  ago. 

The  only  way  perhaps — at  any  rate,  the  only  way  that 
seems  yet  to  have  been  found — by  which  the  benefits  of  differ- 
ing civilizations,  even  of  different  stages  of  social  development, 
can  be  combined  without  working  destruction  and  injustice, 
is  by  the  federal  system  as  it  has  been  most  extensively  and 
successfully  developed  in  the  United  States  and  in  Switzer- 
land. In  a  federal  government  each  local  division  may  retain 
its  own  customs  so  long  as  it  is  willing  to  join  with  other  divi- 
sions in  matters  that  are  of  common  concern  to  all.  In  Switzer- 
land we  find  different  religions,  different  races,  different  lan- 
guages, and  yet  a  harmonious  action  in  questions  that  are 
common  to  all.  It  is  apparently  through  the  extension  of 
this  federal  principle  that  we  must  look  ahead,  so  far  as  it 
shall  prove  practical,  to  an  ultimate  world  peace  through  a 
world  state,  which  may  control  in  certain  common  matters, 
possibly  even  those  touching  war  and  peace,  but  which  shall 
still  leave  to  each  separate  state-^-almost  each  separate  com- 
munity within  each  state — the  right  to  direct  its  own  local 
affairs  and  to  each  individual  liberty  to  play  a  part  in  propor- 
tion to  his  ability  and  influence. 

What  are  the  advantages  of  a  great  unified  state  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  separate  small  states?  Draw  up  a  plan 
of  a  federated  state  of  Europe  naming  matters  of  interest 
common  to  all  of  the  states,  and  indicating  also  matters  of 
special  interest  which  might  be  retained  separately  by  the 
different  states  without  affecting  unfavorably  the  general 
welfare.  By  what  means  could  such  a  state  be  established? 
What  part  should  the  United  States  take  in  such  a  federation? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Hebrew  Military  Organization  and  Methods.     Kent,  Israel's  Laws 
and  Legal  Precedents,  pp.  80-86;  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  IV,  pp. 
892-895. 

(2)  Situation  and  Strength  of  Jerusalem.     Kent,  Biblical  Geography 
and  History,  pp.  64-70;  Smith,  Jerusalem,  Vol.  I. 


The  Importance  of  Personal  Character  in  a  Public  Official  63 

(3)  Study  the  story  of  the  formation  of  the  German  Empire  and  com- 
pare the  methods  employed  by  Bismarck  with  those  used  by  David. 
Bismarck's  Autobiography:  passim;  Hazen,  Chaps.  XI,  XIII,  XIV,  XXX. 

(4)  The  Effects  of  War  upon  Religious  Feeling.     Compare  the  biblical 
accounts  of  David's  wars  with  the  English  and  German  literature  of  the 
European  war  in  1914-15. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  PERSONAL  CHARACTER  IN 
A  PUBLIC  OFFICIAL. 

DAVID'S  WEAKNESS  AND  SINS  AND  THEIR  EFFECTS. 
II  Sam.  9—20;  I  Kgs.  1 : 1—2: 12. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  146-182. 
Croly,  Chap.  V;  Lowell,  Chaps.  IX,  X. 

Nathan  said  to  David,  thou  art  the  man!  .  .  .  And  David  said  to 
Nathan,  I  have  sinned  against  Jehovah. — //  Sam.  12:  7a,  13a. 

Mercy  and  truth  preserve  the  king, 

And  his  throne  is  upholden  by  mercy. — Prov.  20:  28. 

If  a  ruler  hearkeneth  to  falsehood, 

All  his  servants  are  wicked. — Prov.  29: 12. 

I  will  be  lord  over  myself.  No  one  who  cannot  master  himself  is  worthy 
to  rule,  and  only  he  can  rule. — Goethe. 

Wisdom  does  not  show  itself  so  much  in  precept  as  in  life — in  a  firmness 
of  mind  and  mastery  of  appetite.  It  teaches  us  to  do,  as  well  as  to  talk; 
and  to  make  our  actions  and  words  all  of  a  color. — Seneca. 

A  religious  life  is  a  struggle  and  not  a  hymn. — Mme.  de  Stael. 

I. 

DAVID'S  FALL. 

The  tragic,  revolting  story  of  David's  relations  with  Bath- 
sheba  and  her  husband  Uriah  the  Hittite  is  too  familiar  to 
need  repetition.  The  detailed  account  of  the  king's  weak 
yielding  to  passion,  his  consequent  attempted  trickery  to  con- 
ceal his  crime  that  was  foiled  by  Uriah's  innocent,  patriotic 


64  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

self-devotion,  then  his  brutal  order  to  Joab  to  encompass  the 
death  of  Uriah,  is  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the  fact  that 
the  biblical  account  of  Israel's  history  had  for  its  prime  pur- 
pose moral  and  religious  instruction.  The  condemnation  of 
the  prophetic  narrator  and  the  pitiless  frankness  with  which 
the  sin  and  its  far-reaching  consequences,  extending  over 
decades  of  time  and  generations  of  men,  is  told,  are  perhaps 
unmatched  in  literature.  The  tactful  but  unsparing  rebuke 
of  the  prophet  Nathan,  while  a  model  of  literary  skill,  is  none 
the  less  an  appeal  to  the  best  motives  and  the  noblest  feelings 
of  men  of  all  times. 

The  account  discloses  many  of  the  customs  and  much  of 
the  moral  attitude  of  the  people  of  that  day.  The  king's 
word  was  law,  whether  for  good  or  evil.  Neither  the  king's 
attendants,  nor  Bathsheba,  nor  Joab  seems  to  have  raised 
any  question  of  obedience.  The  subsequent  narratives  show 
nevertheless  that  Bathsheba  was  a  woman  skillful  in  intrigue, 
most  persuasive  in  person,  and  limitless  in  ambition,  one 
that  under  like  conditions  might  have  developed  as  did  the 
famous  Empress  Dowager  of  China,  whose  first  successes 
were  apparently  due  to  the  same  seductive  qualities.  From 
the  time  of  her  marriage  with  David  after  Uriah's  death, 
Bathsheba  seems  to  have  been  his  favorite  wife,  and  it  was 
apparently  her  personal  ability  as  much  as  his  own  deserts 
that  secured  for  Solomon,  her  son,  the  succession  to  David's 
throne. 

It  is  noteworthy,  too,  that  the  sin  that  was  so  bitterly  con- 
demned by  the  prophet  seems  not  to  have  been  the  act  of 
adultery — though  that  crime  was  punished  throughout  Hebrew 
history  as  unsparingly  as  murder — but  rather  the  ingratitude 
and  treachery  and  contemptible  meanness  shown  by  the  king 
in  the  gratification  of  his  desire  and  in  his  attempts  to  escape 
its  consequences.  The  strong  are  utterly  despicable  when 
for  personal  gratification  they  plunder  the  weak. 

Consider  carefully  the  social  reasons  which  make  the  crime 
of  adultery  so  injurious  to  the  public  welfare.  Why  is  the 
wrong  not  merely  personal,  but  also  public?  Why  are  acts 
of  faithlessness  and  treachery  on  the  part  of  nations  or  rulers 
of  supreme  significance?  Is  there  any  other  sin  so  flagrant 
for  a  ruler  as  a  violation  of  public  obligation?  Why? 


The  Importance  of  Personal  Character  in  a  Public  Official  65 

II. 
REMORSE  THAT  DID  NOT  UNDO  WRONG. 

The  vivid  parable  of  Nathan  at  first  aroused  David's  just 
indignation  and  scorn  and  he  utterly  condemned  himself  in 
the  person  of  the  fabled  rich  man.  When  Nathan  in  his 
condemnatory  announcement,  "Thou  art  the  man,"  drove 
the  lesson  home  and  sentenced  him,  David  repentantly  acknowl- 
edged his  sin  and  took  with  a  humble  spirit  the  punishment 
declared  against  him  by  the  prophet. 

It  is  known  that  the  tale  was  written  long  after  the  event 
and  this  probably  explains  in  part  the  fact  that  the  results 
foretold — the  violation  of  David's  wives  and  the  death  of 
Bathsheba's  son — both  actually  took  place  in  exact  accord 
with  the  account  given;  and  yet  it  required  no  gift  of  second 
sight  or  miraculous  foresight  to  see  that  such  a  sin,  committed 
even  in  these  early  days  when  the  moral  delinquencies  of 
kings  did  not  always  receive  the  condemnation  which  they 
merited,  would  certainly  have  dire  results. 

David's  disposition  is  likewise  clearly  depicted  in  the  story 
told  of  the  death  of  Bathsheba's  son.  When  the  child  fell 
sick,  David  besought  God,  lying  all  night  in  sackcloth  upon 
the  roof,  as  he  sent  up  his  petitions,  and  fasting  continually 
until  on  the  seventh  day  the  child  died.  As  soon,  however, 
as  hope  had  gone,  his  practical  sense  and  energetic  disposition 
made  themselves  manifest  and  he  rose,  washed,  anointed  himself, 
changed  his  garments,  came  to  the  house  of  Jehovah  and 
worshiped.  Then  going  to  his  own  house,  he  ate  and  took 
up  the  business  of  the  day. 

It  is  not  recorded  that  David  made  any  further  effort  what- 
soever to  expiate  his  sin.  Indeed,  how  could  such  expiation 
be  made  excepting  through  better  instruction  that  might  be 
given  his  sons  and  the  further  teaching  of  his  people?  Doubt- 
less many  moralists  would  insist  that  he  should  have  repudiated 
Bathsheba  and  disinherited  Solomon,  her  son.  Such  an  act, 
however,  was  not  at  all  in  accord  with  David's  disposition 
and  character,  and  it  is  an  open  question  whether  thereby 
he  would  not  have  committed  a  further  sin  instead  of  having 
expiated  his  first  offense.  David's  frank,  generous  and  on 
the  whole,  upright  character  led  him  doubtless  to  keen  repent- 


66  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

ance,  but  his  active,  cheerful,  optimistic  temperament  would 
not  permit  him  to  brood  over  his  sins. 

Ought  one  to  brood  over  a  sin  committed?  Is  there  a  better 
proof  of  repentance  than  a  changed  mode  of  life?  Did  David 
truly  repent?  What  are  the  reasons  for  your  opinion?  What, 
according  to  the  New  Testament,  is  the  remedy  for  past  sins? 
Compare  David  with  Shakespeare's  Macbeth,  King  Lear,  and 
George  Eliot's  Adam  Bede. 

III. 

THE  SHADOW  OF  DAVID'S  CRIME. 

Whether  willing  or  unwilling  to  change  his  course,  the  terrible 
effects  of  David's  unbridled  passions  were  not  to  be  escaped. 
Repentance  seldom  changes  results.  Even  in  the  members 
of  his  own  family  the  same  gross  crimes  reappear,  and  one 
can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  example  and  influence  of  the 
father  were  felt  by  his  sons,  giving  them  a  plausible  excuse  for 
similar  acts.  David's  pitiful  weakness  in  dealing  with  members 
of  his  own  family,  as  he  grew  old,  casts  such  a  deep  shadow 
upon  his  reputation  that  it  darkens  materially  the  brilliancy 
of  his  greatest  achievements.  The  odious  crime  of  his  eldest 
son  Amnon,  whom  David  at  that  time  doubtless  looked  upon 
as  his  probable  successor,  was  so  like  that  of  his  father,  both 
in  nature  and  in  the  personal  meanness  of  his  actions  in  con- 
nection with  the  accompanying  results,  that  one  might  well 
think  of  an  hereditary  influence.  The  murder  of  Amnon  by 
his  half-brother,  Absalom,  in  revenge,  was  doubtless  in  part 
inspired  by  what  he  looked  upon  as  his  duty,  being  the  next 
of  kin  to  his  wronged  sister,  in  part,  also,  doubtless,  by  some 
hope  of  succeeding  to  the  throne  in  case  of  his  brother's  death. 

As  David  had  shown  weakness  in  dealing  with  Amnon,  he 
likewise  showed  similar  weakness  in  dealing  with  the  various 
acts  of  treason  of  Absalom.  Is  it  perhaps  possible  that  the 
kindness  and  consideration  shown  by  David  in  his  youth 
toward  his  earlier  patron  and  friend,  King  Saul,  were  after 
all,  merely  a  certain  kindly  weakness  of  disposition  and  char- 
acter that  later  in  life  in  dealings  with  his  children  became  a 
most  grievous  fault,  leading  to  the  condoning  of  hideous 
crimes  and  eventually  to  the  disruption  of  his  kingdom?  Is 
a  kind  disposition  often  an  accompaniment  of  weakness?  Is 


The  Importance  of  Personal  Character  in  a  Public  Official  67 

there  any  relation  between  strength  and  courage  and  cruelty 
of  nature? 

IV. 

THE  REVOLT  OP  ABSALOM. 

One  would  be  more  inclined  to  believe  that  Absalom  was 
influenced  on  the  whole  by  worthy  aims  in  encompassing  the 
death  of  his  guilty  brother  Amnon,  had  his  succeeding  years 
been  less  marked  by  treachery  and  treason,  leading  even  to 
an  attempt  to  secure  the  throne  by  killing  his  own  father. 
After  the  consideration  shown  him  by  King  David  in  per- 
mitting him  to  return  to  Jerusalem,  Absalom  treacherously 
took  pains  to  cultivate  the  friendship  of  the  Hebrews.  He 
appears  to  have  devoted  his  attention  especially  to  the  citizens 
of  Judah,  the  democratic  hill  men,  who  seemed  somewhat  to 
resent  David's  growing  neglect  of  his  royal  duties  as  judge 
and  leader,  and  who,  doubtless  also,  on  account  of  their  ruder, 
half-nomadic  habits,  their  greater  personal  independence,  and 
their  closer  allegiance  to  the  older  belief  in  Jehovah,  were 
inclined  to  criticize  the  gradual  drifting  of  the  kingdom  into 
the  more  refmed  and  luxurious  customs  of  the  lowlands  and 
of  the  subjected  Canaanites.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
with  the  new  prosperity  of  the  kingdom  a  far  greater  degree 
of  luxury  became  prevalent  even  at  David's  court,  and  that 
with  the  refinements  of  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  civiliza- 
tions, there  came  also  not  a  little  of  the  Canaanite  corruption 
so  bitterly  denounced  by  the  later  prophets.  A  sharp  conflict 
sprang  up  between  the  two  types  of  civilization,  and  it  is 
evident  that  David,  who  had  been  reared  in  the  stricter  school 
of  the  pastoral  tribes,  in  his  declining  years  gradually  drifted 
into  the  more  luxurious  and  weaker  habits  of  those  against 
whom  in  his  earlier  days  he  had  waged  some  of  his  best  fought 
battles. 

Absalom  was  crafty  enough  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation 
and  patiently  and  treasonably  to  cultivate  the  friendship 
of  these  dissatisfied  tribesmen.  When,  however,  the  rebellion 
actually  broke  out  and  Absalom  gathered  his  cohorts  about 
him  to  overthrow  the  king,  David,  although  taken  by  surprise, 
showed  all  of  his  old  shrewdness  and  skill  in  escaping  the 
immediate  danger,  in  misleading  Absalom  with  the  aid  of  his 
counsellor  Hushai  and  his  priests  Zadok  and  Abiathar,  until 


68  'The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

his  own  safety  was  secured  and  the  downfall  of  Absalom 
became  certain.  Again,  however,  at  the  time  of  the  final 
battle  with  Absalom,  we  see  the  same  personal  weakness,  which 
now  almost  wrecked  the  kingdom.  Beyond  doubt  Absalom 
was  a  traitor  of  the  most  dangerous  type;  beyond  doubt  also 
the  kingdom  was  far  better  off  in  David's  hands  than  in  those 
of  his  son,  and  even  David  showed  no  desire  whatever  to 
abdicate  in  Absalom's  favor.  Unless  he  intended  to  abdicate, 
the  only  possible  course  to  be  followed,  in  the  light  of  the  con- 
ditions of  those  days,  was  to  encompass  the  defeat  and  death 
of  Absalom.  David's  attempt  to  save  Absalom's  life  and, 
what  was  still  worse,  his  failure  to  show  appreciation  of  the 
loyalty  of  not  only  Joab,  but  also  of  his  host  of  devoted  fol- 
lowers, nearly  divided  the  kingdom.  This  tenderness  of  heart 
and  conscience  seems  a  lofty  virtue  as  it  is  manifested  in  David's 
relations  with  Saul;  it  seems  also  a  worthy  and  on  the  whole 
a  noble  humility  when  David  takes  meekly  the  abuse  of  Shimai ; 
but  in  the  crucial  conditions  under  which  the  revolt  of  Absalom 
took  place,  the  same  characteristic  is  clearly  a  fatal  weakness. 
What  excuse  had  Absalom  for  his  conspiracy?  Did  he  really 
sympathize  with  the  sterner  beliefs  and  habits  of  the  Judahites? 
What  limit  should  each  of  us  set  upon  his  own  kindness  and 
mercy?  Is  kindness  that  is  not  prompted  by  justice  often  a 
crime?  Illustrate. 

V. 

THE  TRAGEDY  OF  DAVID'S  LATER  YEARS. 

David  in  his  last  years  is  a  weak,  lonely,  sad,  betrayed  old 
man.  The  pitiful  longing  and  weakness  of  a  failing  man,  as 
well  as  the  customs  of  his  age  and  of  the  degenerate  court, 
are  vividly  painted  in  the  story  of  Abishag,  the  beautiful 
Shunammite;  and  the  almost  complete  withdrawal  of  the 
king  from  participation  in  public  affairs  appears  in  the  con- 
spiracies of  Adonijah  and  Bathsheba,  regarding  the  succession. 
The  king  himself  seems  to  have  had  little  will  or  interest  in 
the  matter;  but  when  Bathsheba  came  to  him  in  person,  her 
former  charm  and  force  of  character  appeared,  and  under  her 
persuasive  influence  and  that  of  Nathan,  whose  vigorous 
courage  had  won  the  king's  confidence  years  before,  David 
carried  out  their  wishes.  Even  in  this  last  appearance  of 
David  in  public  life,  we  see  the  diplomatic  skill  which  through- 


The  Importance  of  Personal  Character  in  a  Public  Official  69 

out  his  many  years  was  so  marked  a  characteristic.  It  was 
King  David,  not  Bathsbeba  nor  Nathan,  who  promptly  formu- 
lated the  plan  by  which  Solomon  was  to  be  anointed  king 
under  such  circumstances  that  the  people  would  stand  by 
him  as  the  Lord's  anointed  in  accordance  with  the  law  and 
customs  of  the  age. 

Perhaps  no  other  character  in  Hebrew  history,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  Moses,  shows  so  many  marked  char- 
acteristics of  personal  success  and  greatness  as  did  David.  No 
other  character  has  his  personal  weaknesses  and  sins  pointed 
out  with  such  detail  and  merciless  frankness.  The  Hebrew 
narrators  clearly  intended  that  their  moral  lessons  should  be 
unmistakably  understood;  and  yet  David  had  evidently  won 
their  hearts  also  as  he  did  the  hearts  of  all  who  came  in  contact 
with  him,  so  that  in  summing  up  his  story,  they  loved  him 
still  and  depicted  him  as  the  greatest  hero  of  their  race. 

What  bearing  has  the  story  of  Bathsheba  upon  the  extent 
and  nature  of  woman's  influence  in  public  affairs?  How  far 
ought  we  to  guard  ourselves  against  excusing  the  sins  and  weak- 
nesses of  those  we  love?  At  what  period  in  their  lives  should 
old  men  transfer  their  responsibilities  to  younger  shoulders? 
What  are  the  ethical  and  social  principles  involved? 

VI. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OP  A  GREAT  MAN'S  CHARACTER  ON  His  RACE. 

The  only  immortality  that  George  Eliot  recognizes  in  her 
writings  is  that  which  comes  from  personal  heredity  (that  is, 
the  acquired  qualities  which  one  transmits  through  his  de- 
scendants) and  especially  from  the  personal  influence  of  one 
individual  upon  others.  The  whole  story  of  King  David 
emphasizes,  perhaps  as  strongly  as  that  of  any  character  in 
history,  the  powerful  influence  exerted  by  a  strong  man  in  an 
influential  position.  His  history,  too,  seems  to  controvert 
Shakespeare's  dictum: 

"The  evil  that  men  do  lives  after  them 
The  good  is  oft  interred  with  their  bones." 

As  has  been  shown  beyond  question,  the  evil  in  David's 
life  and  the  weakness  in  his  character  undoubtedly  influenced 
many  others  to  commit  gross  crimes  and  led  even  to  revolu- 
tion within  the  kingdom  itself.  But  as  one  gains  a  com- 


70  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

prehensive  view  of  the  entire  course  of  David's  life  and  notes 
the  ennobling  influence  of  his  better  personal  characteristics 
upon  his  people,  marks  the  love  and  loyalty  with  which  not 
only  Joab  and  the  Philistine  warriors  but  also  his  people  both 
of  Judah  and  Israel  followed  him  throughout  his  life,  in  spite 
of  his  sins  and  weakness,  and  understands  also  how  his  skill 
in  war  and  diplomacy  enabled  him  to  build  up  out  of  a  weak 
group  of  jealous,  quarrelsome,  scattered  tribes  a  united  kingdom 
which  under  his  leadership  grew  into  one  of  the  great  empires 
of  his  day,  it  is  easy  to  appreciate  the  tremendous  power  of 
nobility  and  strength  of  character.  In  David's  case  the 
good  far  out-tops  the  evil.  In  spite,  too,  of  the  pitiful  suffering 
of  his  later  days  and  the  regrets  and  pain  which  violations 
of  his  conscience  brought  him,  his  life  seems  on  the  whole  to 
have  yielded  to  him  a  surplus  of  satisfaction  and  happiness. 
It  was  the  joy  of  patriotic  service  and  worthy  achievement, 
and  these  acts  were  remembered  by  the  people  long  after  his 
personal  faults  and  sins  were  forgotten.  Centuries  later  they 
continued  to  look  for  the  advent  of  another  anointed  one  who 
would  rule  in  the  spirit  and  reproduce  the  glories  of  David's 
reign. 

It  has  been  said  that  one  should  so  shape  his  life  that  his 
last  ten  years  shall  be  his  best  in  influence,  in  achievement, 
in  happiness.  Suggest  changes  in  David's  life  that  would  have 
promoted  such  a  desirable  result.  Are  you  building  your  life 
on  such  a  plan?  How  far  will  such  a  plan  consider  one's 
physical  welfare?  Mental  culture?  Moral  habits?  Religious 
beliefs?  Religious  practices? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Israel's  Laws  regarding  Adultery.     Kent,  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal 
Precedents,  pp.  109-111. 

(2)  Compare   the   statesmanship    of   Daniel   Webster   and   Abraham 
Lincoln  and  judge  how  far  moral  integrity  was  a  factor  in  determining 
the  fate  of  each.    Tarbell,  Life  of  Lincoln;  Lodge,  Life  of  Webster. 


Culture  Without  Religion  71 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CULTURE  WITHOUT  RELIGION. 
SOLOMON'S  POLICY.— I  Kgs.  2:13— 4: 6;  4: 29-34;  5:1— 8:66. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  183-185,  187-192. 
Croly,  Chap.  VI;  Lowell,  Chaps.  XI,  XII. 

So  the  king  gave  command  to  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  he 
went  out  and  struck  Shimei  down,  and  thus  he  died.  So  the  kingdom 
was  brought  completely  under  the  control  of  Solomon. — I  Kings  2:  46. 

Now  when  Solomon  was  old,  his  heart  was  not  perfect  with  Jehovah 
his  God. — /  Kings  11:  4b. 

Whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant. — Matt. 
20:  27. 

He  who  learns  the  rules  of  wisdom,  without  conforming  to  them  in 
his  life,  is  like  a  man  who  labored  in  his  fields,  but  did  not  sow. — Saadi. 

Wisdom  will  never  let  us  stand  with  any  man  or  men  on  an  unfriendly 
footing. — Emerson. 

'Tis  not  what  man  Does  which  exalts  him,  but  what  man  Would  do! — 
Browning. 

I. 

THE  WAY  IN  WHICH  SOLOMON  BECAME  KING. 

It  was  of  course  natural  that  as  David  grew  old  there  should 
be  strife  among  his  sons  as  to  which  one  should  become  his 
successor.  In  those  days,  as  we  have  already  noted,  the 
eldest  son  was  naturally  the  heir  to  the  throne,  although  if 
other  sons  showed  superior  ability,  they  were  sometimes 
chosen.  It  was  recognized  that  the  reigning  king  had  the 
privilege  of  nominating  his  successor,  but  in  any  event  the 
nomination  was  to  be  confirmed  by  the  approval  of  the  leaders 
of  the  people  either  formally  or  informally. 

David's  eldest  son  Amnon  had  been  murdered  by  Absalom 
in  revenge  for  the  wrong  done  to  Absalom's  sister.  Absalom 
himself,  the  next  in  line,  had.  been  slain  in  battle  in  revolt 
against  his  father.  The  next  in  order  was  Adonijah,  a  man 
described  by  the  narrator  as  "an  exceedingly  good-looking 
man."  Apparently  he  was  also  a  man  of  ambition  and  fond 
of  display.  Counting  upon  the  inactivity  or  good  nature  of 
his  father  David,  "he  prepared  for  himself  chariots,  horsemen 
and  fifty  men  to  run  before  him  as  runners, "and  made  it  clear 
to  the  people  that  he  desired  to  be  king.  His  father  had  never 
questioned  his  acts  and  he  did  not  expect  that  he  would  be 


72  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

troubled  now.  He  discussed  his  plans  with  Joab  the  leader 
of  the  army  and  with  Abiathar,  one  of  the  leading  priests, 
and  won  them  over  to  his  side.  A  certain  strong  group, 
including  the  other  chief  priest,  Zadok,  Benaiah,  the  leader  of 
the  king's  bodyguard,  the  three  famous  heroes  of  David,  and 
Nathan  the  prophet,  he  could  not  persuade  to  espouse  his 
cause.  They  favored  instead  Solomon,  his  younger  brother. 
No  justification  is  given  for  their  preference  of  Solomon. 
There  is  good  reason  to  believe,  however,  that  they  considered 
him  the  better  man.  His  mother,  Bathsheba,  as  we  know 
from  other  accounts,  was  a  woman  of  ability  and  great  per- 
suasive powers;  and  she  probably  had  used  her  influence  in 
favor  of  her  son,  not  only  with  the  king,  but  also  with  these 
leading  men  of  the  nation.  Moreover,  as  later  history  shows, 
Solomon  himself  was  a  most  attractive  personality  and  in  all 
probability  a  man  of  greater  strength  of  mind  and  character 
than  his  older  brother. 

As  soon  as  Adonijah's  plans  became  evident,  Bathsheba 
by  the  advice  of  Nathan  laid  the  case  before  David.  Doubtless 
the  emergency  was  critical.  If  Adonijah  succeeded,  Bathsheba 
and  Solomon  and  probably  Nathan  and  the  other  leaders 
opposed  to  Adonijah  would  lose  their  lives.  Bathsheba's 
appeal  to  David  was  successful.  He  had  apparently  earlier 
promised  that  Solomon  should  succeed,  and  now  he  not  only 
confirmed  the  nomination  but  with  all  his  old-time  shrewdness 
and  skill  he  laid  the  plans  by  which  Solomon  should  first  be 
seated  on  the  throne  and  secure  the  approval  of  the  people. 

Evidently  the  personal  rivalry  of  the  different  party  leaders 
had  much  to  do  with  the  selection.  Joab  and  Benaiah  were 
rival  leaders  of  different  military  bodies.  Abiathar  and 
Zadok  were  rivals  as  priests.  Nathan,  who  years  before  had 
so  boldly  denounced  David  for  his  alliance  with  Bathsheba, 
had  apparently  been  won  over  by  her,  so  that  in  any  jealous 
antagonism  that  must  have  existed  between  her  and  the  other 
wives  of  David's  harem,  the  old  prophet  was  on  her  side. 

David's  own  promptness  and  skill  and  knowledge  of  his 
people  seem,  nevertheless,  to  have  been  the  decisive  factor. 
It  was  a  recognized  custom  of  the  time  for  the  king  to  nominate 
his  successor,  and  David  clinched  his  nomination  by  having 
Solomon  actually  seated  on  the  royal  ass,  publicly  proclaimed 
as  king,  and  approved  by  the  people,  while  the  good-looking 


Culture  Without  Religion  73 

Adonijah  was  wasting  time  in  attempting  to  win  over  his 
followers  by  personal  display  and  by  giving  a  feast. 

How  do  you  explain  the  act  of  Joab  in  supporting  Adonijah 
against  the  will  of  King  David?  Compare  the  plots  of  Adonijah 
and  Solomon  with  those  of  Huerta  and  Carranza  and  other 
leaders  in  Mexico.  Mention  any  similar  practices  in  modern 
European  or  Asiatic  history. 

II. 

SOLOMON'S  MACHIAVELLIANISM. 

Even  Adonijah,  when  he  saw  how  completely  he  had  been 
outwitted,  promptly  accepted  Solomon  as  king.  Knowing 
that  his  life  was  in  danger,  he  fled  at  once  to  the  altar  for  pro- 
tection and  appealed  to  Solomon  for  mercy.  King  Solomon 
promised  to  spare  him,  provided  he  were  thereafter  to  "show 
himself  a  worthy  man." 

Apparently,  however,  Adonijah  did  not  reckon  upon  the 
stern  decision  of  Solomon's  character,  but  ventured  a  little 
later  to  tempt  his  kindness  further.  Solomon  then  hesitated 
no  longer.  He  showed  all  of  the  cold-blooded,  calculating 
sternness  that  Machiavelli  recommends  in  his  famous  book 
"The  Prince."  "The  usurper  of  a  state  should  commit  all 
the  cruelties  which  his  safety  renders  necessary  at  once,  that 
he  may  never  have  cause  to  repeat  them;  .  .  .  matters  of 
severity  should  be  finished  at  one  blow.  .  .  .  When  it  is 
necessary  for  a  Prince  to  restrain  his  subjects  within  the  bounds 
of  duty,  he  should  not  regard  the  imputation  of  cruelty.  He 
should  not  shrink  from  encountering  some  blame  on  account 
of  vices  which  are  important  to  the  support  of  his  states. 
I  maintain  that  a  prince,  and  especially  a  new  prince,  cannot 
with  impunity  exercise  all  the  virtues,  because  his  own  self- 
preservation  will  often  compel  him  to  violate  the  laws  of 
charity,  religion,  and  humanity." 

The  provocation  for  the  first  stroke  was  thus:  Adonijah 
persuaded  Bathsheba  to  ask  Solomon  to  give  to  him  in  marriage 
Abishag,  the  beautiful  young  attendant  of  David.  Inasmuch 
as  it  was  generally  recognized  in  those  days  that  the  man  who 
took  the  concubines  of  the  king  was  the  king's  successor,  the 
request  was  extremely  bold,  even  though  it  was  possibly 
made  with  an  innocent  intent.  Abishag  had  never  been  really 
the  concubine  of  King  David,  though  nominally  so,  and  it 


74  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

was  not  unnatural  for  Adonijah  to  wish  her  for  his  wife.  Never- 
theless he  was  familiar  with  the  custom.  Even  his  elder  brother 
Absalom  in  his  revolt  against  his  father,  acting  on  the  advice 
of  his  priests,  had  entered  the  harem  of  King  David  and  taken 
his  concubines  as  evidence  of  his  succession  to  the  throne. 

Adonijah  should  have  been  wiser  than  to  tempt  the  king, 
but  he  promptly  paid  the  penalty,  for  he  was  immediately  put 
to  death.  The  life  of  Abiathar  the  priest  was  spared  simply 
because  he  had  borne  the  ark  of  Jehovah  before  King  David 
and  had  shared  all  of  David's  trials,  but  he  was  deprived  of 
his  priestly  rank  and  banished  to  his  private  estate  at  Anathoth, 
north  of  Jerusalem.  Joab,  who  had  been  one  of  the  leaders 
of  Adonijah's  party,  though  he  fled  immediately  to  the  altar 
for  sanctuary,  was  slain  there  by  Benaiah,  the  leader  of  the 
bodyguard,  and  the  king  placed  Benaiah  at  the  head  of  the 
army  in  Joab's  place.  The  killing  of  Joab,  now  an  old  man,  who 
had  been  the  faithful,  though  at  times  the  harsh  and  unruly 
friend  of  David,  seems  merciless;  but  the  king  gave  as  explana- 
tion of  his  acts  the  fact  that  Joab  had  slain  with  his  own  hand 
two  men  (Abner  and  Amasa)  "more  honorable  than  he" 
without  sufficient  reason.  And  from  the  published  accounts 
most  men  would  agree  that  those  acts  of  Joab  had  not  been 
justifiable.  A  later  account  also  states  that  King  David 
had  himself  recommended  to  Solomon  that  Joab's  life  be 
taken.  If  this  account  is  authentic,  it  remains  an  open  ques- 
tion whether  the  dying  king  in  a  spirit  of  petty  spitefulness 
had  turned  against  the  man  who  had  so  often  made  him  trouble 
in  earlier  years,  though  always  faithful,  or  whether  he  seriously 
recognized  that  so  long  as  Joab  lived,  King  Solomon  could 
never  depend  upon  his  absolute  loyalty  on  account  of  his 
support  of  Adonijah.  Whatever  the  reason  may  have  been, 
Solomon  apparently  determined  to  take  no  further  chances 
with  any  of  his  enemies.  One  after  the  other  was  removed, 
apparently  not  in  passion  nor  in  fear,  but  coolly,  deliberately, 
after  calm  consideration,  until  he  stood  alone  without  a  rival. 

Do  you  approve  or  condemn  Solomon's  treatment  of  Adoni- 
jah? Of  Joab?  Is  it  likely  that  David  urged  that  Joab  be 
slain?  Why  do  you  think  so?  Mention  modern  instances  of 
like  character.  Is  the  political  overthrow  of  a  rival  by  false 
stories  or  insinuation  against  his  character  less  blameworthy 
than  Solomon's  method?  Give  illustrations  of  modern  as- 


Culture  Without  Religion  75 

sassination  or  attempted  ruin  of  reputation  for  political  pur- 
poses. Ought  a  ruler's  code  of  morals  to  differ  from  that  of  a 
private  citizen,  as  Machiavelli  seems  to  teach? 

III. 

SOLOMON'S  REPUTATION  FOR  WISDOM. 

There  is  no  more  attractive  story  in  history  of  youthful 
devotion  and  noble  ambition  than  the  account  given  of 
Jehovah's  appearance  to  Solomon  in  a  dream  in  Gibeon. 
The  modest  youth  apparently  realizing  to  the  full  the  heavy 
responsibilities  resting  upon  him  as  heir  to  the  great  empire 
of  his  father  uttered  the  beautiful  prayer,  "Thou  hast  showed 
to  thy  servant  David  my  father,  great  kindness.  And  now, 
Holy  Jehovah,  my  God,  thou  hast  made  thy  servant  king 
in  the  place  of  David  my  father,  although  I  am  but  a  child, 
not  knowing  how  to  go  out  or  to  come  in.  Give  thy  servant, 
therefore,  an  understanding  mind  to  teach  thy  people,  that 
I  may  discern  between  good  and  evil;  for  who  is  able  to  judge 
this  thy  great  people?"  Solomon  received  in  full  the  answer 
to  his  petition;  but  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  nature  of  the 
oriental  wisdom  which  he  exhibited  to  so  marked  a  degree  that 
he  was  considered  by  later  Hebrew  historians  the  wisest  man 
of  all  time.  The  oriental  mind  is  traditionally  given  to 
philosophical  speculation,  it  delights  in  the  solution  of  knotty 
personal  problems,  it  makes  fine  hair-splitting  distinctions  in 
logical  analysis:  but,  nevertheless,  it  is  often  found  lacking  in 
practical  sagacity  when  dealing  with  the  every-day  problems 
of  life. 

Solomon  doubtless  had  the  "discerning  mind,"  as  is  shown 
by  the  illustrations  given  in  the  Bible.  He  could  answer 
promptly  all  the  puzzling  riddles  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  He 
could  analyze  the  motives  of  a  jealous  woman  and  readily 
determine  justice  in  individual  cases;  but  in  the  deeper  western 
sense  of  the  word,  Solomon  did  not  possess  practical  wisdom, 
however  penetrating  his  intellect  or  keen  his  insight. 

Solomon  was  not  farsighted  in  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom 
as  had  been  David  his  father.  David  knew  that  his  kingdom 
must  rest  upon  the  will  and  favor  of  his  people,  and  through 
his  whole  career  in  innumerable  instances  we  see  evidence 
of  this  knowledge.  He  had  a  sound  judgment  in  building 


76  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

upon  the  feelings,  even  upon  the  prejudices  of  the  Hebrews, 
so  as  to  weld  together  out  of  numerous  jealous  tribes  one 
people,  united  in  a  purposeful  ambition  and  devotion  both  to 
him  and  to  the  principles  of  Jehovah's  rule  for  which  he  stood. 
Solomon,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  have  had  little  regard 
for  either  the  feelings  or  the  welfare  of  his  people.  He  doubt- 
less pleased  many  of  them  by  the  artistic  display  of  his  wealth 
and  by  rich  ceremonial,  but  this  was  at  the  expense  of 
the  comfort  and  personal  welfare  of  the  masses;  and  even 
before  his  death,  as  we  shall  see,  his  nation  had  commenced 
to  call  him  to  account.  ^Moreover,  he  lacked  good  judgment 
and  tact  in  dealing  with  individual  problems,  when  he  himself 
was  not  in  a  position  of  an  absolute  judge  and  dictator.  More 
than  to  anybody  else  he  owed  consideration  to  King  Hiram 
of  Tyre,  from  whom  he  received  much  of  the  material  out 
of  which  he  built  the  temple  on  Mount  Zipn,  which  made  him 
celebrated  throughout  the  ancient  Semitic  world  and  which 
helped  him  to  unify  his  kingdom.  Also  it  was  by  King  Hiram's 
advice  and  with  his  immediate  help  that  he  entered  upon  the 
commercial  plans  that  brought  great  wealth  and  display  into 
his  kingdom.  No  other  alliance  had  been  so  fruitful  of  good 
either  to  himself  or  to  King  David,  his  father,  as  that  with 
Hiram;  and  yet,  when  the  opportunity  came  for  him  to  pay 
his  ally,  instead  of  cementing  this  friendship,  he  aroused  the 
king's  displeasure.  Evidently  in  return  for  favors  received 
Solomon  assigned  to  Hiram  twenty  cities  in  the  land  of  Galilee; 
but  apparently  he  selected  cities  that  were  poor  and  not  worthy 
to  be  offered  as  such  gifts,  for  when  Hiram  came  from  Tyre 
to  see  them,  he  was  displeased  with  them  and  gave  them  the 
name  which  lasted  for  centuries  "the  land  of  Cabul  (good  for 
nothing)."  Apparently  with  a  feeling  of  ironical  contempt 
he  sent  (Hebrew  tradition  asserts)  still  further  to  King  Solomon 
one  hundred  twenty  talents  of  gold. 

Solomon  showed  a  certain  ability  in  organizing  the  details  of 
administration,  but  he  manifested  also  a  vanity  and  love  of 
personal  display  combined  with  carelessness  regarding  the  wel- 
fare of  his  people  that  amounted  to  the  greatest  folly.  It  is 
questionable  whether  on  the  whole  it  would  not  be  a  more  just 
estimate  of  Solomon  to  call  him,  not  the  wisest,  but  the  most 
foolish  of  Israel's  kings. 

General  Grant  ranked  low  in  his  class  at  West  Point.     How 


Culture  Without  Religion-  77 

do  you  explain  his  remarkable  success  as  a  general?  General 
McClellan  ranked  high  at  West  Point.  How  do  you  explain 
his  lack  of  success  in  the  field? 

Consider  the  early  records  of  Bismarck,  Gladstone,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Jackson.  What  is  the  test  of  wisdom?  What 
are  the  main  causes  of  greatness?  Of  the  men  named  above 
which  most  resembled  Solomon? 

IV. 

SOLOMON'S  IDEAS  OF  RELIGIOUS  WORSHIP. 

In  the  field  of  religion  likewise  Solomon  fell  far  below  the 
wisdom  and  insight  of  the  great  prophets.  His  religious  worship 
was  formal  rather  than  spiritual.  It  had,  too,  a  political  aspect, 
in  that  he  made  the  great  temple  that  he  built  at  Jerusalem 
one  of  the  chief  places  of  worship  for  the  Hebrews,  so  that 
not  only  his  capital  city  was  strengthened  but  also  his  cen- 
tralizing policy  was  furthered  through  having  the  eyes  of  all 
the  tribes  turned  toward  Jerusalem  as  the  great  religious 
center  of  the  kingdom.  He  appreciated  the  political  and 
artistic  elements  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah;  but  he  did  not 
appreciate  the  need  of  right  personal  living  as  the  fundamental 
characteristic  of  devout  worship. 

We  speak  much  in  these  days  of  religious  toleration.  It  is, 
however,  worth  while  to  note  the  different  meanings  of  tolera- 
tion. Solomon  was  doubtless  tolerant.  He  was  willing  to  have 
his  people  subscribe  to  any  and  all  beliefs.  In  his  day,  to  be 
sure,  most  peoples  believed  in  numerous  gods,  each  tribe, 
often  each  clan,  having  its  own  separate  divinity.  But  Jehovah 
had  become  to  the  Israelites  the  one  God  most  worthy  of  their 
devotion  and  the  one  whose  will,  as  they  understood  it,  led 
to  the  highest  and  noblest  living.  Solomon  appeared  to  make 
no  distinction  between  the  gods.  He  set  up  new  sanctuaries 
merely  to  please  his  foreign  wives.  He  did  not  study  the 
varying  moral  ideals  represented  by  the  different  gods  or 
forms  of  worship,  nor  did  he  even  advocate  the  good  repre- 
sented by  each,  but  in  sheer  good-natured  carelessness,  or 
more  likely  in  order  to  facilitate  his  foreign  alliances,  he 
said,  "Let  every  one  do  as  he  will."  It  is  beyond  question  that 
the  worship  of  Chemosh  the  god  of  Moab  and  of  Ashtarte 
the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians  and  that  of  many  of  the  Canaanite 


78  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

gods  were  attended  with  licentious  practices  that,  while  they 
enticed  and  pleased,  had  still  a  corrupting  influence  upon 
the  morals  of  the  people.  But  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  though 
attended  with  bloody  sacrifices  that  seem  to  us  barbarous 
relics  of  the  crude  anthropological  conception  of  the  deity, 
was  nevertheless  in  its  total  effect  only  uplifting  and  purifying 
to  morals.  Solomon  apparently  made  no  distinction  between 
them  and  cared  little  for  the  moral  effects  of  worship.  In 
fact  a  man  whose  chief  delight  was  in  the  magnificence  of  his 
court  and  "who  was  a  lover  of  women"  could  not  be  expected 
to  have  a  keen  moral  sense. 

The  account  given  of  Solomon's  worship  was  of  course 
written  after  the  event,  and  the  writer  in  many  instances 
condemned  Solomon  far  more  bitterly  than  even  the  most 
enlightened  thinker  of  his  day  could  have  done.  Yet  even 
in  his  own  time  the  spiritually  minded  men,  especially  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  who  still  retained  the  simpler  beliefs  and  prac- 
tices of  King  David  and  his  predecessor,  condemned  most 
bitterly  these  practices,  and  were  ready  before  Solomon's 
death  to  stir  up  a  conflict  between  the  stricter  followers  of 
Jehovah  and  the  more  cultured  devotees  of  the  gods  of  the 
Canaanites.  The  prophet  Ahijah  before  Solomon's  death 
predicted  the  division  of  the  kingdom  and  the  succession  of 
Jeroboam. 

Distinguish  between  the  toleration  of  Solomon  and  that 
of  Jesus.  Was  Lincoln  tolerant  in  political  matters?  Had 
Lincoln  been  tolerant  in  politics  in  the  same  way  that  Solomon 
was  tolerant  in  religion,  should  we  have  today  a  united  country? 
Think  out  fully  the  reasons  for  your  opinion.  Define  real 
toleration,  political  and  religious.  Did  Solomon's  religious 
toleration  have  a  positive  political  bearing? 

V. 

CHUKCH  AND  STATE. 

In  any  consideration  of  the  history  of  the  ancient  Semitic 
peoples  we  must  recognize  that  there  was  no  division  between 
church  and  state.  Every  nation,  even  every  tribe,  had  its 
own  separate  deity.  Every  ruler  of  necessity  worshiped 
the  deity  of  his  people  and  promulgated  his  laws  as  the  com- 
mands of  the  god.  The  wars  that  were  fought  between  the 


Culture  Without  Religion  79 

different  nations  were  looked  upon  as  wars  of  the  separate 
gods,  and  when  a  victory  was  won,  it  was  ascribed  to  the  active 
intercession  of  the  nation's  god  and  was  accepted  as  a  proof 
that  the  victorious  god  was  superior  in  skill  and  power  to 
the  vanquished.  In  those  circumstances  it  is  evident  that 
there  could  be  no  distinction  made  between  church  and  state, 
between  the  administration  of  religious  and  of  secular  affairs. 
Such  a  distinction  is  entirely  a  modern  conception  and  a 
modern  practice. 

Even  in  the  middle  ages  and  down  to  modern  times  the 
division  line  between  the  religious  and  secular  fields  of  human 
activity  is  not  clearly  drawn.  The  greatest  contest  of  the 
middle  ages  in  Europe  was  that  between  the  so-called  spiritual 
power  of  the  popes  and  the  temporal  power  of  the  kings;  and 
as  we  know,  the  power  of  the  most  ambitious  and  most  suc- 
cessful of  the  spiritual  rulers  was  based  on  their  assumption 
of  the  right  to  interfere  in  temporal  affairs.  Even  the  tem- 
poral rulers  received  their  kingdoms  with  the  consent  of  the 
pope.  This  head  of  the  church  claimed  the  right  to  absolve 
from  their  allegiance  the  subjects  of  any  king  whose  acts  he 
declared  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God.  When  King  Henry 
IV  was  kept  waiting  for  three  days  bareheaded  and  barefooted 
at  the  palace  gates  at  Canossa  before  the  haughty  Pope  Gregory 
would  admit  him  to  make  his  confession  of  wrong  doing  and 
his  submission  to  the  dominant,  not  to  say  domineering  religious 
potentate,  he  recognized,  it  is  true,  a  distinction  between  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  realms  that  could  not  have  been  recog- 
nized by  King  David  or  King  Solomon,  but  he  still  was  com- 
pelled to  feel  most  keenly  a  relationship  between  the  two 
that  no  longer  exists.  The  personal  ambitions  and  desires, 
the  growing  economic  and  military  strength  of  the  kings 
and,  most  of  all,  the  growth  of  personal  independence  of  the 
people  in  thought  and  act  that  followed  the  invention  of 
printing  and  the  Protestant  Reformation,  carrying  out  the 
individualistic  and  social  teachings  of  the  New  Testament, 
brought  about  the  separation  of  the  two  spheres  of  personal 
activity.  The  effective  motives,  as  for  example  in  the  case 
of  King  Henry  VIII  of  England,  were  not  always  the  highest; 
but  in  the  case  of  most  religious  leaders  and  of  the  leading 
religious  and  philosophical  thinkers  only  the  welfare  of  humanity 
was  sought. 


80  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Today  in  Russia  where  the  Czar  from  his  official  position 
is  the  nominal  head  of  the  established  church,  in  Greece  and 
Spain  and  other  countries  where  a  similar  church  organization 
still  remains,  and  even  in  England  where  with  the  utmost  liberal- 
ity of  religious  toleration  in  thought  and  act  the  appointment 
to  all  positions  of  religious  control  and  church  worship  in  the 
established  church  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  government, 
we  still  find  remaining  a  relic  of  the  old  absolute  union  that 
existed  in  ancient  days.  Throughout  the  centuries  since  the 
Protestant  Reformation,  however,  the  tendency  toward  separa- 
tion has  been  steadily  strengthened,  until  at  the  present  time  in 
all  countries  among  the  so-called  non-conformist  denominations 
and  in  some,  like  the  United  States,  with  all  denominations, 
the  separation  has  become  complete,  apparently  to  the  moral 
and  religious  benefit  of  both  state  and  church. 

This  formal  separation  between  the  political  and  religious 
organizations  does  not  imply  any  fundamental  separation 
between  the  two  fields  of  religion  and  politics.  In  the  church 
there  should  be  carried  out  the  form  of  governmental  organiza- 
tion that  is  best  suited  to  the  needs  and  effective  work  of  the 
members  of  the  religious  body  concerned,  and  in  the  state 
all  the  officials  of  whatever  degree  should  be  actuated  by  the 
principles  of  righteousness  and  by  an  unselfish  devotion  to  the 
welfare  of  humanity  that  characterizes  the  teachings  and  to  a 
continually  increasing  degree  throughout  the  civilized  world 
marks  the  practices  of  the  religious  leaders  of  all  churches 
of  whatever  faith. 

Is  the  appointment  of  Thanksgiving  Day  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  a  political  or  a  religious  function?  In 
some  of  the  American  colonies  only  church  members  were 
allowed  to  vote  on  governmental  questions.  Was  this  a  union 
of  church  and  state?  What  are  some  of  the  arguments  for 
and  against  dividing  the  public  school  funds  among  religious 
denominations  and  then  giving  them  control  of  the  schools? 

VI. 

THE  TREND  OF  MODERN  CIVILIZATION. 

It  has  already  been  intimated  that  King  Solomon  with  all 
of  his  magnificent  personal  ability  must  still  be  counted  a 
failure  in  the  political  field,  because  he  failed  to  recognize 


Culture  Without  Religion  81 

the  rights  of  the  individual  citizens  in  his  kingdom  and  in 
consequence  was  dwarfing  rather  than  strengthening  the 
personal  development  of  his  subjects;  for  every  government 
may  well  be  tested  by  the  tendency  toward  an  increasing  of 
the  welfare — economic,  intellectual  and  moral — of  the  great 
mass  of  the  people. 

In  modern  times  there  has  been  a  rapid  development  in  the 
spirit  of  religious  freedom  and  toleration — with  here  and 
there  a  rare  exception — among  civilized  peoples.  The  in- 
dividual is  now  at  liberty  to  speak  and  even  to  act  as  he  wil] 
on  religious  matters.  Wherever  there  is  a  distinct  separation 
between  church  and  state  and  especially  where  there  is  a 
large  degree  of  individual  initiative  left  to  the  citizen,  this 
toleration  becomes  easy.  In  Switzerland,  for  example,  under 
the  federal  form  of  government,  we  find  Roman  Catholics 
and  Protestants  of  various  denominations  living  in  harmony, 
because  the  central  government  does  not  interfere  with  religious 
questions  and  no  citizen  is  compelled  to  pay  taxes  for  the 
support  of  any  church  to  which  he  does  not  belong,  though 
in  some  of  the  cantons  the  schools  are  placed  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  churches  and  the  clergy  are  supported  by  public 
funds.  We  find  also  in  Switzerland  different  nationalities, 
Italians,  French,  Germans  (even  in  many  cases  they  do  not 
understand  one  another's  language)  living  in  harmony,  because 
the  central  government  does  not  interfere  with  local  affairs. 
The  representatives  from  the  separate  cantons,  that  deal  with 
federal  matters  of  common  interest,  can  either  speak  and 
understand  one  another's  language  or  the  official  interpreter 
makes  clear  whatever  points  are  not  readily  understood. 
The  tendency  of  the  times  is  clearly  toward  the  greatest  tolera- 
tion, the  weakening  of  formalism,  and  the  strengthening  of 
the  influence  of  religion  upon  man's  moral  acts. 

There  was  seen  in  Solomon's  reign  a  great  increase  of  wealth 
and  of  luxury  in  the  nation.  In  ancient  Palestine,  however, 
the  increasing  wealth  was  not  widely  distributed  among  the 
people.  It  was  invested  largely  in  public  buildings,  in  magnifi- 
cent royal  robes,  precious  jewels  and  other  articles  for  dis- 
play, and  in  luxurious  —  often  licentious  —  living  for  the  king 
and  the  court,  and  was  not  devoted  to  increasing  the  comfort 
of  the  common  people.  Indeed,  as  the  court  increased  in 
magnificence,  heavier  burdens  were  laid  upon  the  people. 


82  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

While  the  king  and  the  courtiers  and  their  associates  and  visi- 
tors lived  in  the  midst  of  luxury,  the  common  people  dwelt 
in  little  mud  huts  in  abject  poverty,  many  of  them  in  a  state 
of  slavery  amidst  conditions  worse  than  in  the  days  of  his 
father  David  and  with  the  degree  of  wretchedness  steadily 
on  the  increase.  The  revolt  following  Solomon's  death  was 
based  upon  the  demand  for  greater  freedom  and  greater  com- 
fort for  the  people.  There  is  fortunately  a  clearly  denned 
tendency  in  modern  times,  with  the  rapidly  growing  wealth 
that  comes  from  modern  inventions  and  improved  methods 
of  business,  for  the  people  to  demand  a  larger  share  in  the 
increasing  wealth.  Sometimes  this  demand  is  granted;  often 
it  is  at  first  refused;  but  its  validity  is  being  more  and  more 
generally  recognized.  Danger  comes  indeed,  as  many  examples 
in  history  show,  from  the  increase  of  luxury  in  any  community, 
but  the  improvement  in  the  standard  of  living  will  do  not 
harm  but  good,  provided  the  general  level  of  comfort  in  the 
community  rises  and  luxury  is  not  retained  as  the  perquisite 
of  a  few  rich  people,  but  within  the  limits  of  reason  and  justice 
is  distributed  widely  among  the  people.  This  is  a  normal 
result  of  the  teaching  of  the  purest  and  best  religion,  as  well 
as  of  democracy. 

We  have  already  noted  that  Solomon's  efforts  toward  despot- 
ism eventually  led  through  revolt  toward  democracy.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  scientific  thinkers  on  politics  since 
Solomon's  day,  as  shown  by  Aristotle  in  the  fourth  century 
before  Christ,  have  clearly  recognized  that  tyranny  leads 
ultimately  toward  democracy.  Aristotle  also  taught,  as  have 
writers  since  his  day,  that  there  may  be  a  tyranny  of  the  people; 
that  a  democracy  in  which  the  citizens  do  not  exhibit  self- 
control  and  show  no  desire  to  do  justice  to  all  certainly  leads 
to  an  ignorant  and  vicious  oppression  of  certain  classes  which 
likewise  at  times  brings  about  the  rule  of  one  who  becomes 
a  despot.  The  course  of  history  seems  to  have  shown  this 
truth  also;  and  in  consequence  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
the  people  are  thus  becoming  through  experience  in  political 
affairs,  as  well  as  in  religious  affairs,  more  tolerant  and  more 
ready  to  grant  to  one  another  the  rights  that  each  demands. 

Can  one  trace  in  modern  Germany  the  development  of  the 
principles  just  laid  down  regarding  either  religious  toleration 
or  luxury  or  democracy?  Can  one  trace  these  principles  in 


The  Fundamental  Importance  of  a  Right  Financial  Policy  83 

modern  Russia  any  less?  Give  an  illustration  of  oppression 
by  the  people  or  their  representatives  that  has  led  to  a  benevo- 
lent despotism.  Can  we  infer  from  the  form  of  government 
whether  it  will  be  despotic  or  democratic  in  spirit? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Ancient  Egyptian  Wisdom.     Wisdom    of    the    East   Series,   The 
Instruction  of  Ptah-hotep;  Breasted,  Egyptian  Records,  Vol.  I,  230,  231. 

(2)  Study  carefully  the  history  of  religious  oppression  and  religious 
freedom  in  the  Colonies  of  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Rhode  Island,  and 
compare  the  conditions  there  with  those  under  the  rule  of  Solomon.     Lodge, 
English  Colonies  in  America;  Frothingham,   The  Rise  of  the  American 
Republic. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    FUNDAMENTAL    IMPORTANCE    OF   A    RIGHT 

FINANCIAL  POLICY. 

SOLOMON'S  SYSTEM  OF  REVENUE  AND  EXPENDITURE. 
—  I  Kgs.  4:7-28;  9:10—11:40 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  II,  pp.  186,  201-208. 
Croly,  Chap.  VII;  Lowell,  Chap.  XIII. 

And  Solomon  had  twelve  officers  over  all  Israel,  who  provided  food  for 
the  king  and  his  household:  each  man  had  to  make  provision  for  a  month 
in  the  year. — /  Kings  4-  7. 

Now  the  weight  of  gold  that  came  to  Solomon  in  one  year  was  six  hun- 
dred and  sixty-six  talents  of  gold,  besides  what  came  from  the  traffic  of 
the  merchants  and  from  all  the  kings  of  the  Arabians  and  from  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  country. — /  Kings  10: 14,  15. 

The  king  shall  not  take  many  wives  for  himself,  lest  his  heart  turn 
away;  nor  shall  he  collect  for  himself  great  quantities  of  silver  and  gold. — 
Deut.  17: 16b,  17. 

Of  all  the  evils  that  infest  the  state, 
The  tyrant  is  the  greatest:  there  the  laws 
Hold  not  one  common  tenor;  his  sole  will 
Commands  the  laws,  and  lords  it  over  them. 

— Euripides. 
The  prince  who 

Neglects  or  violates  his  trust  is  more 
A  brigand  than  the  robber  chief. — Byron. 

I. 

THE  OBJECT  AND  RIGHT  OF  TAXATION. 
Some  of  the  so-called  scientific  anarchists  of  the  present 
day,  recognizing  too  keenly  certain  weaknesses  that  are  found 


84  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

in  most  governments,  teach  that  we  should  abolish  all  govern- 
ments and  that  matters  of  common  interest  should  be  regulated 
by  voluntary  organizations  of  groups  of  people  interested  who 
have  agreed  upon  their  rules  of  action.  Others  say  that, 
although  this  is  not  practical  because  many  individuals  are 
selfish,  still  if  we  should  ever  reach  a  stage  of  moral  excellence 
in  which  each  individual  exemplifies  the  Christian  principle 
of  unselfishness,  government  would  no  longer  be  necessary, 
since  each  would  care  for  others.  Is  it  riot  evident,  however, 
that,  even  though  each  individual  were  absolutely  unselfish, 
if  each  were  also  intelligent,  independent  in  judgment,  and 
ready  to  take  upon  himself  the  responsibility  for  his  acts, 
there  would  still  be  a  difference  in  conscientious  judgments 
which  would  lead  to  conflicts  that  in  some  way  must  be  settled? 
However  unselfish  a  man  might  be,  his  conscience  would 
compel  him  to  insist  upon  what  he  believed  to  be  for  the  welfare 
of  others,  even  though  he  might  meet  many  differing  opinions. 
On  this  account  it  becomes  clearly  evident  that,  in  all  countries, 
under  all  beliefs,  at  all  times,  there  must  be  some  form  of 
government  with  authority  to  compel  action  if  need  be.  As 
population  increases,  civilization  develops,  invention  multiplies, 
life  becomes  more  and  more  complex  and  the  need  of  regula- 
tion becomes  continually  greater,  it  is  found  more  expedient 
and  best  for  all  the  people  to  delegate  certain  functions  of 
regulation  and  action  to  a  committee  who  shall  carry  them 
out  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole.  Thus  government  is  estab- 
lished to  formulate  and  enforce  the  rules  of  action  that  become 
necessary. 

Men  who  give  their  time  in  this  way  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  the  community  must  be  supported;  and  thus  in  the  most 
natural  manner  the  need  for  taxation  arises. 

It  has  been  sometimes  asserted  that  people  should  pay 
taxes  in  proportion  to  the  services  rendered  them  by  the 
government.  In  a  few  special  cases,  as  for  example  in  sending 
letters  through  the  post  office,  the  service  rendered  can  in  a 
general  way  be  measured  so  that  this  plan  is  adopted.  Gene- 
rally speaking,  however,  such  measurement  of  service  is  im- 
possible. While  a  rich  man  has  more  property  to  be  protected 
by  the  government  than  has  the  poor  man,  he  is  better  able 
to  hire  protection  than  is  a  poor  man,  so  that  it  may  well  be 
argued  that  the  poor  man  has  the  greater  need  and  that  the 


The  Fundamental  Importance  of  a  Right  Financial  Policy  85 

service  rendered  him  is  correspondingly  greater.  The  fact 
is  that  in  all  civilized  countries  practically  every  one  of  our 
activities  is  controlled  by  the  government  and  therefore  govern- 
ment is  to  each  one  a  matter  of  superlative  importance.  Even 
before  a  child  is  born  it  has  a  legal  status  and  rights  that  have 
been  determined  by  governmental  act.  Every  business  con- 
tract made  of  whatever  nature  has  its  sanction  and  its  enforce- 
ment through  the  government.  Peace  and  safety  in  the 
community,  the  health  of  the  inhabitants,  many  of  the  con- 
veniences of  their  lives  are  either  directly  guaranteed  or  sup- 
ported by  the  government.  Even  the  conditions  of  one's 
death  and  burial  are  to  a  large  degree  prescribed.  Every 
man  owes  practically  all  the  benefits  of  civilization  to  his 
government  and  the  government  has  the  right  in  case  of  need, 
and  it  frequently  exercises  the  power,  to  call  for  any  sacrifice, 
even  for  that  of  life,  from  its  citizens.  All  of  the  leading 
authorities,  therefore,  on  taxation  have  reached  the  general 
conclusion  that  people  should  pay  taxes,  not  in  proportion  to 
the  benefits  received  from  the  government,  as  they  cannot 
be  measured,  but  rather  in  proportion  to  their  ability  to  pay. 
The  methods  of  determining  the  amount  payable  naturally 
must  vary  in  different  countries  and  under  different  conditions 
dependent  upon  economic  considerations,  on  the  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  equally  upon  the  intelligence  and  skill  of  the  law- 
makers and  of  the  citizens.  Taxes  should  be  payable  always 
in  the  ways  and  at  the  times  most  convenient  for  the 
people,  and  only  in  cases  of  the  most  extreme  necessity 
should  they  be  levied  so  as  to  lessen  at  all  the  productive 
forces  of  the  country.  Moreover,  as  government  exists  for 
the  good  of  the  governed,  no  taxes  whatever  are  justified 
unless  they  are  to  be  expended  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
Any  tax  levied  for  the  mere  satisfaction  of  a  ruler  without 
regard  to  tne  welfare  of  his  people  is  not  justified;  but  any 
tax  or  any  burden  that  is  fitted  to  promote  the  general  welfare 
may,  at  the  discretion  of  the  government  properly  established 
by  the  people,  be  laid  upon  them.  It  is  lack  of  recognition  of 
what  we  owe  to  the  government  and  of  the  patriotic  sacrifices 
that  each  one  can  well  afford  to  make,  which  leads  so  many 
short-sighted  and  selfish  individuals  to  avoid  taxation  and  to 
attempt  to  escape  payment  of  their  proper  share. 
On  what  ground  do  you  justify  taxation  for  the  support 


86  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

of  public  schools?  Of  a  public  library?  Of  a  public  art  gallery? 
Of  a  public  opera  house?  Of  a  public  dance  hall?  Is  it  wise 
and  fitting  to  use  rooms  in  public  school  buildings  for  dances 
and  plays?  Is  a  person  ever  justified  in  refusing  to  pay  a 
tax  that  he  thinks  unwise?  Would  a  believer  in  free  trade  be 
any  more  justified  in  smuggling  than  a  believer  in  a  protective 
tariff?  Why  do  many  people  attempt  to  conceal  their  property 
from  the  tax  assessors  in  order  to  escape  taxation? 

II. 

SOLOMON'S  NEEDS  FOB  REVENUE. 

Solomon  of  course  had  the  normal  needs  for  the  support 
of  government  officials  that  his  father  David  had  and  that  all 
rulers  find  necessary.  In  addition  thereto,  however,  there 
were  many  special  expenditures  made  by  Solomon,  some  of 
which  were  doubtless  beneficial,  others  of  questionable  need 
or  advantage.  Solomon  strengthened  the  fortifications  of 
Jerusalem  and  improved  decidedly  its  strength  as  a  military 
post  and  its  advantages  as  a  social  and  religious  center.  Be- 
sides strengthening  Jerusalem  he  also  built  fortresses  in  different 
parts  of  his  kingdom  at  Hazor  and  Megiddo  in  the  north, 
Baalath,  Gezer  and  Bethhoron  in  the  west,  over  against  the 
Philistines,  at  Tamar  in  the  south,  and  storehouses  and 
cities  elsewhere.  So  far  as  these  fortresses  were  needed  as  a 
defense  against  foreign  tribes  and  nations  there  was  ample 
justification  for  the  wealth  expended  upon  them.  It  seems 
probable,  however,  that  these  fortified  places  were  used  in 
part,  at  any  rate  toward  the  close  of  his  reign,  in  order  to 
strengthen  his  hands  in  enforcing  compulsory  labor  upon  his 
people  by  which  many  thousands  of  them  became  practically 
public  slaves  with  no  individual  rights  of  their  own,  and  also 
to  enable  him  better  to  suppress  any  revolt  caused  by  his 
tyrannical  policy.  So  far  as  the  fortresses  were  desired  to 
suppress  the  aspirations  of  his  own  people  for  freedom  and 
a  voice  in  the  government  the  expenditures  were  not  justifiable. 

Later  tradition  states  that  David  had  planned  to  build 
for  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had  remained  on  Mount  Zion 
in  a  tent,  a  temple  suitable  for  the  housing  of  so  sacred  a 
memorial  of  Jehovah's  covenant  with  his  people;  but  he  had 
to  content  himself  with  collecting  materials  for  its  construe- 


The  Fundamental  Importance  of  a  Right  Financial  Policy  87 

tion.  Solomon  carried  out  this  plan  on  a  scale  that  seemed 
most  magnificent  to  his  subjects,  although  the  temple  as 
compared  with  our  modern  buildings  was  not  large.  It 
was  a  little  over  ninety  feet  long,  thirty  feet  broad  and 
forty-five  feet  in  height.  It  was  nevertheless  planned  in 
beautiful  proportions  and  was  decorated  with  an  elaborate 
richness  and  splendor  that  certainly  had  never  before  been 
equalled  in  Palestine.  One  might  well  apply  to  it  the  saying 
applied  centuries  later  to  the  Taj  Mahal,  the  magnificent 
mausoleum  erected  at  Agra,  in  India,  by  the  Grand  Mogul 
Shah  Jehan  in  loving  memory  of  his  favorite  wife  Mumtaz-y- 
Mahal,  "It  was  planned  by  Titans  and  finished  by  jewelers." 
Evidently  the  priests  who  later  gave  us  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  I  Kings  the  detailed  account  of  the  temple  and  its  furnishings, 
believed  it  was  wise  and  proper  for  Solomon  to  expend  vast 
sums  upon  the  temple  erected  in  honor  of  Jehovah  the  God 
of  Israel.  It  is  indeed  probable  that  the  conditions  were  such 
in  Jerusalem  at  that  day  that  this  relatively  large  expenditure 
for  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  fully  justified,  although  under 
the  different  conditions  of  modern  times  many  of  the  noblest 
religious  thinkers  would  believe  that  at  least  part  of  that 
outlay  might  better  have  been  devoted  to  promoting  the 
personal  comfort  and  welfare  of  the  people. 

However  well  the  expenditure  upon  the  temple  may  be 
justified,  most  thoughtful  students  of  politics  would  agree 
that  the  enormous  sums  expended  upon  the  building  of  Solo- 
mon's palace  and  the  apartments  erected  for  the  satisfaction 
and  pleasure  of  his  Egyptian  queen  and  his  numerous  wives 
and  concubines  could  have  no  such  justification. 

Are  churches  ever  tempted  to  expend  wealth  on  buildings 
fhat  might  better  be  spent  on  "social  work"?  On  what 
principle  ought  a  church  to  regulate  its  expenditures?  Is 
there  danger  that  a  modern  government  will  spend  too  much 
for  public  buildings?  Would  you  favor  an  increase  or  a  de- 
crease in  the  salary  of  the  President  of  the  United  States? 
Of  our  ambassadors  abroad?  Why?  Does  the  building  of 
fortresses  by  Solomon  throw  any  light  on  the  problem  of  our 
military  expenditures?  Give  reasons. 


88  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

III. 
SOLOMON'S  SOURCES  OF  REVENUE. 

During  much  of  his  reign,  especially  the  earlier  part,  Solomon 
must  have  received  large  revenues  from  tributes  paid  by  con- 
quered tribes  and  peoples  whom  King  David  had  subdued. 
We  have  no  record  of  the  amounts  thus  received;  but  from 
the  accounts  given  of  his  other  revenues  this  source  was  prob- 
ably only  of  minor  importance. 

In  building  the  temple  and  his  palaces  Solomon  made  an 
agreement  with  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  by  which  the  latter 
furnished  cypress  timber  for  his  buildings,  Solomon  paying 
therefor  in  wheat  and  olive  oil.  To  carry  out  his  building 
schemes  Solomon  raised  a  forced  levy  of  thirty  thousand 
men,  besides  seventy  thousand  burden  bearers  and  eighty 
thousand  hewers  of  stone  in  the  mountains  together  with 
officers  and  superintendents.  An  onerous  burden  was  thus 
imposed  upon  his  people  that  could  be  justified  by  only  the 
greatest  necessity  or  for  a  satisfaction  common  to  all  his  people. 

The  same  inexcusable  and  short-sighted  extravagance  is 
shown  in  the  way  in  which  he  carried  on  his  commercial  under- 
takings. David  had  extended  the  kingdom  to  the  eastern 
arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  so  that  there  was  an  outlet  by  water  to 
the  Indian  Ocean  and  the  lands  beyond.  With  the  assistance 
of  King  Hiram,  many  of  whose  subjects  were  seamen  with 
knowledge  of  the  commercial  water  routes,  Solomon  built  a 
fleet  of  ships  on  the  Red  Sea  and  sent  them  to  Ophir  (probably 
in  India,  perhaps  some  port  of  eastern  Arabia,  or  possibly 
East  Africa)  from  which  he  imported  gold,  silver  and  ivory, 
and  also  large  quantities  of  red  sandalwood  and  precious 
stones,  together  with  apes  and  peacocks  and  other  objects  of 
luxury  and  display  from  the  distant  Orient.  On  account 
of  the  splendors  of  his  court  many  other  rulers  came  from 
distant  lands  to  visit  him,  bringing  with  them  presents  of  all 
kinds,  so  that  his  wealth  was  thereby  increased.  These  were, 
of  course,  all  sources  of  revenue;  but  it  is  to  be  noted  in  these 
latter  cases  that  the  imports  into  his  kingdom  were  such  as  would 
add  to  the  magnificence  of  his  position  as  a  ruler,  but  not  to  the 
comfort  or  welfare  or  commercial  strength  of  his  people. 

In  one  or  two  lines,  however,  it  is  evident  that  Solomon  and 
his  advisers  had  the  true  commercial  spirit.  He  imported 


The  Fundamental  Importance  of  a  Right  Financial  Policy  89 

horses  from  Mugri  and  Kiie  and  sold  them  again  at  a  large 
profit  to  the  kings  of  the  Hittites  and  the  Arameans;  and  it 
is  entirely  possible  that  it  was  wise  in  those  days  for  the  govern- 
ment to  engage  directly  in  a  commercial  enterprise  of  this 
kind  to  a  degree  that  would  not  be  wise  and  profitable  now. 
This  is  the  only  reference  to  a  foreign  trade  that  was  profitable 
to  the  people,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  even  this  profit 
lessened  in  any  way  the  burdens  laid  upon  them.  It  all  depends 
upon  the  use  made  of  the  surplus  revenue. 

A  large  part  of  Solomon's  building  enterprises,  as  we 
have  seen,  did  not  benefit  his  people  directly  nor  add  to  the 
comfort  of  their  lives,  while,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  the  building  of  the  temple  and  the  trading  in  horses,  all  of 
the  rest  of  the  commerce  mentioned  and  the  expenditures 
of  which  any  account  is  given  served  simply  to  add  to  the 
burdens  of  his  people  while  gratifying  his  own  personal  ex- 
travagance and  his  luxurious  and  licentious  tastes.  It  should 
be  noted  that  most  of  this  revenue,  whether  wheat  or  oil  or 
labor,  was  probably  levied  as  a  direct  tax  upon  his  people  and 
was  payable  in  kind,  as  is  customary  now  in  India  and. Egypt 
and  Java  and  other  oriental  countries.  It  is  doubtful,  how- 
ever, if  it  was  levied  justly  in  proportion  to  the  income  of 
the  wheat  and  oil  growers,  as  is  done  strictly  in  the  modern 
cases  mentioned.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  products  were 
taken  with  little  regard  for  an  easy  adjustment  of  burdens, 
while  the  levy  of  forced  labor  of  course  fell  upon  the  poorer 
classes  so  heavily  as  practically  to  reduce  them  to  slavery. 

IV. 

THE  EFFECTS  OF  SOLOMON'S  POLICY  UPON  ECONOMIC 
CONDITIONS. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  chief  sources  of  revenue 
that  Solomon  employed  were  direct  levies  of  labor  and  food, 
although  some  profit  was  also  made  from  commerce,  and  doubt- 
less numerous  gifts  added  to  his  revenues.  His  father,  King 
David,  had  extended  the  bounds  of  his  kingdom  by  conquests 
and  had  greatly  added  to  his  revenues  by  securing  the  tributes 
paid  to  him  by  the  subject  tribes.  Some  of  these  tributes 
were  still  continued  throughout  the  reign  of  Solomon,  but  as 
is  related  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  I  Kings,  before  the  end 


90  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

of  his  reign  a  series  of  revolts  broke  out  which  must  have 
deprived  him  of  large  revenues.  All  of  these  defections  naturally 
increased  the  burdens  which  Solomon  laid  upon  the  Israelites, 
for  he  was  determined  to  gratify  his  extravagant  tastes  to  the 
utmost  and  apparently  in  his  short-sightedness  or  his  selfish 
recklessness  took  little  heed  of  the  distant  future. 

The  consequence  of  this  short-sighted  policy  was  that  the 
king,  who  had  the  reputation  of  being  the  wisest  man  of  his 
age  in  uttering  maxims,  in  solving  riddles,  in  rendering  judg- 
ment in  minor  individual  cases,  by  producing  lavish  enter- 
tainments, and  "by  gratifying  the  artistic  tastes  of  the  wealthy, 
was  steadily  impoverishing  his  kingdom  and  laying  burdens 
upon  his  people  that  were  becoming  more  and  more  intolerable. 

Inasmuch  as  his  subjects  were  a  pastoral  and  agricultural 
people  and  were  not  in  a  position  themselves  to  market  their 
products  readily,  it  is  probable  that  the  payment  of  the  levies 
in  kind  was  entirely  satisfactory,  so  far  as  they  were  levied 
justly  and  proportionately.  The  chief  objection  to  this  part 
of  his  taxing  system  was  the  amount  demanded  and  probably 
also  the  injustice  of  the  distribution  of  the  burden,  although 
of  that  we  have  no  definite  account. 

The  same  comment  may  be  made  regarding  the  economic 
effect  of  forced  labor.  In  early  stages  of  society,  where  there 
is  little  agriculture  and  practically  no  manufacturing  and 
few  commercial  enterprises,  a  reasonable  amount  of  forced 
labor  is  not  objectionable.  It  is  retained  to  a  small  extent  in 
the  United  States  and  France  and  takes  the  form  of  labor  on 
public  roads.  In  many  cases  the  inhabitants  are  compelled, 
not  only  to  work  upon  roads,  but  also  to  perform  personal 
services  for  the  rulers,  as  was  earlier  the  case  in  the  Philippines, 
or  to  act  as  night  policemen  and  day  patrol,  as  is  common  today 
in  Java  and  Burmah.  Whatever  the  nature  of  the  work,  if 
not  too  much  is  demanded,  it  is  often  the  easiest  way  in 
which  taxes  can  be  paid.  In  the  case  of  Solomon,  however, 
it  is  clear  that  the  numbers  levied  and  the  amount  of  their 
time  taken  were  so  large  that  it  must  have  affected  most 
unfavorably  the  actual  productive  work  of  the  kingdom. 
Moreover  the  labor  required  was,  as  we  have  seen,  not  neces- 
sary for  the  comfort  of  the  people,  nor  did  it  tend  to  increase 
the  capital  of  the  kingdom. 

Even  the  revenue  from  gifts  was  doubtless  paid  for  by  even 


The  Fundamental  Importance  of  a  Right  Financial  Policy  91 

more  magnificent  presents  from  Solomon,  so  that  instead  of 
a  source  of  permanent  gain,  the  visits  of  generous  rulers  were 
a  source  of  actual  loss.  And  as  the  gains  in  territory  made 
by  his  father  were  not  increased  by  Solomon,  the  revenue 
from  those  conquests  were  gradually  and,  toward  the  close 
of  his  reign,  rapidly  becoming  less.  The  people  must,  there- 
fore, have  felt  keenly  the  increase  of  burdens  and  their  growing 
poverty. 

Some  people  have  claimed  that  certain  taxes,  like  a  protective 
tariff,  impose  no  burden  upon  the  people.  In  what  cases  is 
this  true?  One  of  the  Malay  states  whose  production  of  tin 
is  so  large  that  it  has  a  certain  monopoly  therein  levies  an 
export  duty  on  tin.  Who  bears  the  burden  of  that  tax,  the 
residents  of  that  country  or  the  foreign  consumers  of  tin? 
Who  bears  the  burden  of  the  export  duty  on  Manila  hemp, 
the  Filipino  producers  or  the  consumers  of  rope?  How  about 
the  United  States  tariff  on  tin  plate?  On  potatoes,  eggs, 
wine?  Was  Solomon  able  to  make  foreigners  bear  the  burden 
of  any  of  his  revenues? 

V. 

EFFECTS  UPON  THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION. 

All  of  these  results  of  this  wisest  king's  most  foolish  policy 
could  have  only  a  very  seriously  detrimental  political  effect. 
In  the  earlier  days  of  David,  the  people  had  a  voice  in  deter- 
mining their  own  political  policy.  The  need  for  individual 
self-reliance  in  defending  themselves  against  the  perils  of  the 
desert  and  the  wilderness  had  made  them  independent  in 
spirit.  The  continual  warfare  against  the  desert  peoples 
and  the  hostile  Philistines  had  made  them  resourceful,  thought- 
ful warriors;  and  the  Jewish  people  have  never  at  any  stage  of 
their  history,  even  in  its  early  days,  been  lacking  in  intellectual 
independence  and  self-reliance.  The  tyrannical  policy  of 
Solomon,  therefore,  with  its  most  burdensome  economic  effects, 
raised  against  him  the  feelings  of  the  multitude  leading,  as 
we  have  seen,  to  revolutions  among  the  outlying  nations  that 
had  been  conquered  by  David  and  finally,  near  the  close  of 
his  reign,  to  a  rebellion  on  the  part  of  two  of  the  tribes. 

Jeroboam  was  a  man  of  ability  and  authority  selected  by 
Solomon  himself  to  be  placed  in  charge  of  the  forced  labor 
employed  in  building  the  royal  palace  at  Jerusalem,  and  a 


92  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

man  who  would  hardly  have  led  a  revolt  without  good  excuse. 
This  uprising  was  unsuccessful,  but  it  is  a  clear  evidence  of 
the  justice  of  the  complaints  of  the  northern  districts  that 
revolted  that  Jeroboam  was  encouraged  in  his  acts  by  Ahijah, 
the  prophet  of  Shiloh,  one  of  the  enlightened  prophets  who  saw 
in  Solomon's  policy  a  menace  to  true  religion. 

Is  economic  oppression  likely  to  lead  to  political  revolu- 
tion? How  far  were  the  causes  of  the  American  revolution 
economic?  Of  the  French  revolution?  Of  the  rebellion  of  the 
Southern  States? 

VI. 

THE  CITIZEN'S  ATTITUDE  TOWARD  TAXATION. 

It  has  already  been  intimated  in  Section  I,  that,  inasmuch  as 
government  is  a  necessity  and  a  wise  government  a  benefit,  taxa- 
tion is  fully  justified.  The  only  question  regarding  it  that  can 
properly  be  raised  by  the  citizens  is  concerning  the  justice  of 
the  government's  tax  policy,  its  direction,  and  the  amount  to 
be  levied.  The  nature  of  the  tax  policy  must  be  determined 
by  the  stage  of  civilization  and  the  conditions  under  which  the 
people  are  living.  Usually  the  policy  is  to  a  great  extent 
determined  also  by  the  wisdom  or  ignorance  of  the  government. 
Solomon's  case  demands  careful  study  of  the  possible  methods, 
as  well  as  of  those  employed. 

The  question  of  the  direction  in  which  the  money  is  to  be 
spent  is  also  a  matter  of  vital  importance,  as  well  as  the  amount 
to  be  levied.  Every  citizen  has  not  only  a  right  to  inquire 
regarding  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  tax  that  he  shall  pay, 
but  in  a  self-governing  country,  inasmuch  as  injustice  is  often 
wrought  through  taxation,  it  is  a  recognized  duty  of  the  in- 
dividual citizen  to  inquire  also  regarding  expenditures.  A 
clear  distinction  should  be  kept  in  mind  between  the  nature 
of  expenditures  of  private  individuals  and  those  of  the  state. 
A  private  individual  should  and  must  adapt  his  expenditures 
to  his  income.  The  state,  on  the  other  hand,  determines 
first  what  expenditures  it  is  wise  to  make,  then  adapts  its 
income  by  means  of  compulsory  taxation  to  cover  its  ex- 
penditures. The  only  sound  policy  for  a  government  to 
follow,  therefore,  is  to  prepare  in  advance,  as  is  usual  in  most 
civilized  countries,  an  annual  budget,  naming,  first  the  proper 
expenditure,  thus  fixing  the  amount  of  revenue  to  be  raised, 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  93 

then  determining  the  best  and  least  burdensome  ways  to  raise 
the  sums  needed.  In  all  modern  progressive  governments 
this  budget  must  be  fully  explained  to  the  people  or  their 
representatives,  and  must  receive  their  approval  before  the  taxes 
are  levied.  Usually  the  budget  is  one  of  the  important,  fre- 
quently the  most  important  subject  discussed  by  the  legis- 
lature. It  is  always  subjected  to  severe  criticism.  Evidently 
Solomon  did  not  depend  upon  a  budgetary  system  that  had 
passed  the  criticism  of  the  representatives  of  the  people. 

When  is  a  man  justified  in  "swearing  off"  his  taxes?  Can 
a  taxpayer  sometimes  shift  the  burden  of  his  tax  upon  another? 
Give  examples.  Do  you  consider  this  practice  right  and 
just?  Under  what  circumstances  and  how  far? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Hebrew  Systems  of  Taxation  and  Tribute.    Encyclopedia  Biblica, 
IV,  pp.  4905-4916. 

(2)  Examine  the  last  financial  report  of  the  State  in  which  you  live, 
or  that  of  your  city,  noting  the  sources  of  revenue  and  the  main  items  of 
expenditure.     Compare  these  with  Solomon's  sources  of  revenue   and 
objects  of  expenditure  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  welfare  of  the  common 
people. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  EXPRESSION  OF  THE  WILL  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 
THE  DIVISION  OP  THE  HEBREW  KINGDOM. — I  Kgs.  12. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  Ill  (Kings  and  Prophets  of  Israel  and  Judah, 
pp.  1-7. 
Croly,  Chap.  VIII;  Lowell,  Chap.  XIV. 

And  they  said  to  Rehoboam,  Your  father  made  our  yoke  intolerable. 
Now  therefore  make  the  intolerable  service  of  your  father  and  the  heavy 
yoke  he  laid  upon  us  lighter,  and  we  will  serve  you. — I  Kings  12:  7. 

And  when  all  Israel  saw  that  the  king  gave  no  heed  to  them,  the  people 
answered  the  king,  saying, 

What  share  have  we  in  David? 

We  have  no  claim  in  the  son  of  Jesse! 

To  your  tents,  O  Israel! 

Now  care  for  your  own  house,  O  David! — I  Kings  12: 16. 


94  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Statesmanship  would  be  out  to  meet  a  crisis  before  it  had  become 
acute.  The  thing  it  would  emphatically  not  do  is  to  dam  up  an  insurgent 
current  until  it  overflowed  the  countryside. — Lippmann. 

Tyranny 

Absolves  all  faith;  and  who  invades  our  rights, 
Howe'er  his  own  commence,  can  never  be 
But  an  usurper. — Brooke. 

When  private  men  shall  act  with  original  views,  the  lustre  will  be  trans- 
ferred from  the  actions  of  kings  to  those  of  gentlemen. — Emerson. 


THE  DEMANDS  OF  THE  NORTHERN  TRIBES. 

Nowhere  in  ancient  literature  and  history  is  the  issue  between 
despotic  tyranny  and  democracy  more  clearly  presented  than 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  I  Kings.  It  is  a  memorable  chapter 
from  its  bearing  upon  the  age-long  contest  between  designing 
selfish  rulers  and  their  subjects.  It  describes  in  simplest 
terms  that  for  which  the  common  people  in  the  French  Revolu- 
tion were  wildly  groping,  that  which  our  revolutionary  fathers 
demanded  from  King  George,  that  for  which  the  English 
House  of  Commons  has  been  successfully  contending,  that 
which  the  Social  Democratic  party  of  Germany  proposes  to 
wrest  by  force,  if  need  be,  from  the  government  which  they 
have  considered  a  military  autocracy,  and  that  which  the 
citizens  of  our  American  cities  are  beginning  to  recover  from 
the  greedy  hands  of  political  bosses.  The  tribes  assembled 
at  the  ancient  city  of  Shechem  demanded  that  the  man  whom 
they  called  to  lead  and  represent  them  should  be  their  servant, 
not  their  irresponsible  master.  No  befogging  theories  about 
the  divine  rights  of  self-constituted  kings  blinded  the  vision 
of  the  practical,  intrepid  elders  of  Northern  Israel.  Hard 
experience  had  taught  them  on  the  one  hand  their  need  of  a 
ruler  who  would  bind  them  together  in  a  common  defense 
against  their  foes;  on  the  other  how  intolerable  were  the  burdens 
of  irresponsible  despotism.  Their  ideal  was  not  hazy  and 
impracticable,  but  absolutely  concrete  and  definite,  for  David's 
policy  as  a  ruler  in  his  earlier  years  was  the  embodiment  of 
that  for  which  they  were  contending  and  Solomon's  of  that 
which  they  were  absolutely  repudiating. 

The  demand  of  the  elders  also  assumed  that  the  institution 
of  the  kingship  was  based  on  an  implied  or  definitely  expressed 
contract  or  covenant  between  the  ruler  and  those  ruled.  What 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  95 

they  demanded  was  a  magna  charta,  definitely  expressed  in 
words,  if  not  in  writing.  In  modern  terms  they  were  seeking 
to  establish  a  limited,  constitutional  monarchy.  Moreover, 
the  men  who  formulated  these  demands  were  not  a  few  revolu- 
tionary iconoclasts,  but  the  elders  of  the  nation,  the  official 
representatives  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  the  population  and 
area  of  Israel.  Their  method  of  procedure  was  determined, 
but  law-abiding  and  strictly  constitutional.  The  memorable 
gathering  at  Shechem  has  sometimes  been  characterized  as 
a  rebellion.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  may  be  more  truly  described 
as  the  first  constitutional  assembly  of  which  we  have  any  record 
in  human  history.  The  institution  of  the  kingship  was  still 
new  among  the  Hebrews.  As  has  been  noted,  it  was  the  out- 
growth of  the  older  office  of  tribal  sheik,  which  was  in  many 
respects  most  democratic.  The  law  of  succession  was  uncertain 
and  the  right  of  primogeniture  by  no  means  firmly  established, 
as  is  shown  by  the  ambitious  contentions  of  David's  sons  and 
by  the  fact  that  his  eldest,  Adonijah,  did  not  actually  succeed 
him.  The  two  determining  factors  appear  to  have  been  the 
nomination  of  the  dying  king  and  the  popular  acceptance  of 
this  choice  by  the  people.  Even  though  Solomon  was  the 
choice  of  David  and  had  the  support  of  a  strong  group  in  the 
court,  including  the  royal  guard,  he  did  not  become  king  until 
he  was  publicly  presented  to  the  people  and  accepted  by  them 
as  their  new  ruler.  Undoubtedly  Rehoboam  was  Solomon's 
nominee,  and  this  nomination  probably  had  the  tacit,  possibly 
the  public,  approval  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  but  he  could 
not  become  the  legitimate  and  established  king  of  all  Israel 
until  he  had  the  approval  of  a  majority  of  the  tribes.  Before 
giving  that  approval,  they  were  entirely  justified  in  requiring 
definite  assurances  that  Rehoboam  would  rule  in  accord  with 
the  oldest  and  best  traditions  of  the  Hebrew  kingship. 

Was  a  popular  assembly  like  that  recorded  in  I  Kings  12 
possible  or  conceivable  in  ancient  Egypt  or  Babylonia?  If  not, 
why  not?  Do  you  recall  any  earlier  attempt  (that  is,  before 
937  B.C.)  in  human  history  to  establish  a  constitutional  or 
limited  monarchy?  In  what  respects  does  a  constitutional 
monarchy  differ  from  a  republic?  Is  the  freedom  of  the  people 
materially  less? 


96  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

II. 
THE  FOLLY  OP  DENYING  THE  PEOPLE  THEIR  RIGHTS. 

The  legality  of  the  demand  of  the  elders  of  Israel  is  demon- 
strated by  the  fact  that  Rehoboam  went  with  his  court  and 
counsellors  to  Shechem  to  treat  with  the  popular  leaders  of 
the  nation.  A  great  opportunity  was  then  offered  him  to 
cement  the  varied  and  o^scontented  elements  in  the  Hebrew 
Empire  and  to  lay  a  solid  foundation  for  his  rule  over  united 
Israel,  for  the  people  declared  that  they  were  ready  to  give 
him  loyal  service  in  return  for  fair  treatment.  The  fires  of 
tribal  jealousy  appear  for  the  time  to  have  been  smothered. 
Never  was  a  fairer  demand  made  of  a  ruler.  Evidently  Reho- 
boam was  deeply  impressed  with  its  fairness.  Is  it  possible  that 
at  first  the  noble  ideals  inherited  from  his  grandfather  David 
mastered  him  and  that  he  had  a  glorious  vision  of  a  contented, 
united  Israel?  At  least  it  is  clear  that  he  was  deeply  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  the  decision  which  he  was  called  upon 
to  make,  for  he  demanded  three  days  to  consider  it.  In  so 
doing  he  tacitly  recognized  the  propriety  of  the  people's  action 
and  gave  them  encouragement  that  the  reply  would  be  favorable. 

The  Biblical  historian  with  marvelous  skill  has  carried  us 
back  to  that  early  age  and  by  means  of  his  dramatic  record  made 
us  eye-witnesses  and  auditors  at  this  fateful  moment  in  Israel's 
life.  We  hear  Rehoboam's  voice  as  he  asked  the  advice  of 
the  old  men,  who  had  sat  in  the  council  chamber  of  his  father 
Solomon  and  learned  lessons  from  his  mistakes,  but  who  had 
been  bred  in  the  camp  and  court  of  the  patriotic  David,  the 
king  that  had  come  from  the  ranks  and  loved  his  people  more 
than  he  did  himself.  Their  words  apply  equally  well  to  any 
young  ruler  facing  his  responsibilities  of  office:  "If  now  you 
will  be  a  servant  to  this  people  and  serve  them,  and  give  them 
a  favorable  answer,  then  they  will  be  your  servants  forever." 
These  words  embody  a  fundamental  principle  of  life,  which 
the  great  prophet  who  wrote  Isaiah 40-53  and  Jesus  were  destined 
to  make  central  in  all  their  teachings.  If  Rehoboam  had 
only  had  a  larger  vision  and  experience  of  life,  he  would  have 
been  able  to  appreciate  the  eminent  wisdom  of  this  counsel; 
but  with  the  self-sufficiency  of  a  youth  reared  in  a  false  environ- 
ment he  rejected  it.  Pride  and  selfishness  inclined  him  to 
the  counsels  of  the  young  men,  who,  like  himself,  had  been 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  97 

born  and  reared  in  the  glittering,  superficial,  pleasure-loving 
court  of  Solomon.  The  issue  was  clear-cut  and  Rehoboam  and 
his  counsellors  so  interpreted  it.  It  was  the  conciliatory, 
democratic  policy  of  David  and  the  popular  party  versus  the 
autocratic  despotism  of  Solomon  and  the  military  party.  The 
demand  of  the  people  was  too  simple  and  direct  and  the  right- 
ness  of  their  cause  too  obvious  for  compromise  between  these 
two  antithetic  policies.  Rehoboam,  like  many  a  king  before 
and  after  him,  chose  the  policy  that  promised  to  satisfy  his 
own  selfish  ambition  and  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  his 
people.  By  dire  threats  he  sought  to  silence  that  voice.  "If 
you  found  my  father  a  hard  taskmaster,  you  will  find  me  a 
merciless  tyrant/'  was  his  tactless,  shameless  reply  to  the  demand 
that  he  grant  the  people  their  rights.  The  event  quickly 
demonstrated  the  superlative  folly  of  his  policy. 

Is  the  counsel  of  the  old  men  always  the  wisest?  What 
advantages  does  it  possess?  What  influences  often  vitiate 
the  counsel  of  those  of  mature  years?  In  what  fields  of  thought 
and  action  are  the  conclusions  and  counsels  of  youth  of  especial 
value?  What  have  youth  and  old  age  each  to  contribute 
to  the  other?  Is  the  present  tendency  to  disregard  the  counsels 
of  mature  experience  perilous? 

Was  Rehoboam  the  victim  of  wrong  counsel  or  of  his  own 
deliberate  selfishness?  Cite  other  historic  illustrations  of 
rulers  who  have  deliberately  refused  to  grant  the  people  their 
rights.  In  what  respects,  if  any,  did  Rehoboam's  attitude 
toward  society  differ  from  that  of  a  highway  robber? 

III. 

THE  POLITICAL  EFFECT  OF  THE  DIVISION. 

In  its  effects,  not  only  upon  him  but  upon  his  race,  Reho- 
boam's decision  was  one  of  the  most  momentous  ever  made  by 
a  Hebrew  ruler.  For  him  it  meant  the  immediate  loss  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  empire  that  might  have  been  his,  and  fully  three- 
fourths  of  the  arable  land  and  therefore  of  the  income  inherited 
from  his  father.  It  left  him  master  simply  of  a  little,  barren 
upland  principality  that  was  speedily  overrun  and  stripped 
of  its  inherited  resources  by  the  plundering  Egyptian  King 
Shishak.  The  direst  effect  of  all  was  the  heritage  of  civil 
war  between  Judah  and  Northern  Israel  which  constantly 


98  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

weakened  the  strength  of  the  two  kingdoms  and  rendered 
them  an  easy  prey  for  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  conquerors, 
when  they  later  set  out  to  take  possession  of  southwestern 
Asia.  One  direct  effect  of  the  division  upon  Northern  Israel 
was  the  establishment  of  a  series  of  military  dynasties,  which 
depended  upon  the  sword  for  their  authority  and  which  fell 
in  a  welter  of  bloodshed  the  moment  a  stronger  rival  appeared. 
The  result  is  that  Northern  Israel's  history  is  stained  by  a 
series  of  royal  assassinations  that  weakened  both  the  resisting 
power  and  the  patriotism  of  the  people  of  the  north. 

The  division  also  intensified  the  old  rivalry  between  the 
north   and   the  south,  which  David  sought  so  earnestly  and 
successfully  to  allay.     So  intense  did  it  become  in  the  centuries 
following  Rehoboam's  disastrous  decision  that  it  survived  the 
Babylonian  exile  and  reappeared  in  the  bitter  Samaritan  feud 
which  burned  far  down  into  the  Roman  period.     The  cry 
of  the  representatives  of  the  northern  tribes  at  Shechem: 
"What  claim  have  we  in  David? 
We  have  no  claim  in  the  son  of  Jesse!" 

not  only  separated  the  Hebrew  tribes,  but  also  hastened  the 
fall  of  Samaria  in  722  and  of  Jerusalem  in  586  B.C.  More 
disastrous  still  in  bringing  about  the  exile  of  the  Jewish  race 
was  that  lack  of  harmony  and  mutual  confidence  between 
rulers  and  those  ruled  which  was  voiced  in  the  demands  of 
the  people  at  Shechem  and  intensified  by  the  brutal  words  of 
Rehoboam.  Thus  for  the  Hebrews,  as  for  many  other  nations, 
disunion  in  the  end  meant  subjection. 

Picture  what  might  have  been  the  political  history  of  united 
Israel  if  Rehoboam  had  sought  to  serve  rather  than  to  enslave 
his  people.  Would  Israel's  permanent  integrity  have  been  as- 
sured if  the  northern  tribes  had  submitted  at  Shechem  to  Re- 
hoboam's tyrannical  demands?  Are  lasting  peace  and  pros- 
perity possible  under  a  despotism?  Are  the  political  power 
and  prestige  of  a  powerful  state  essential  to  the  welfare  of  a 
people?  Compare  the  relative  prosperity  of  the  average 
citizen  of  England  or  Germany  and  of  Switzerland  or  Holland. 

IV. 

THE  SOCIAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  EFFECTS  OF  THE  DIVISION. 
The  decision   of  the   people   at   Shechem   meant   political 
disaster  for  the  Hebrew  race,  but  it  was  not  lacking  in  positive 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  99 

values  for  them  and  for  humanity.  It  was  a  dramatic  declara- 
tion that  the  object  of  all  government  is  the  conservation  of 
the  rights  of  the  people.  It  committed  a  large  majority  of 
the  Israelites  to  relentless  opposition  to  the  despotic  misuse 
of  political  power.  Has  this  been  in  general  the  attitude  of 
the  Jews  throughout  the  centuries?  Cite  present-day  illus- 
trations in  Europe  and  America. 

The  northern  tribes  placed  at  their  head  a  certain  Jeroboam 
who  came  from  the  ranks  and  who  had  gained  their  confidence 
by  his  brave  and  determined  opposition  to  the  oppressive 
policy  of  Solomon.  In  every  sense  the  action  of  the  ten  tribes 
was  a  democratic  movement.  Jeroboam  I  bore  the  current 
title  king,  but  he  was  as  much  the  choice  of  the  people  as 
George  Washington  or  Abraham  Lincoln.  The  exigencies  of 
the  situation  made  it  necessary  to  establish  a  military  organiza- 
tion in  Northern  Israel,  and  certain  of  the  later  kings  yielded 
to  the  temptation  of  attempting  to  exercise  despotic  powers, 
but  the  relentless  judgment  that  was  visited  upon  such  of- 
fenders showed  how  firmly  democratic  ideals  were  established 
in  the  minds  of  the  people.  The  record  of  the  reign  of  Jero- 
boam I  is  brief  and  has  been  colored  by  the  prejudices  of  the 
later  Judean  historians,  who  had  come  to  regard  Jerusalem 
as  the  one  legitimate  sanctuary  and  the  northerners  as  rebels. 
But  from  the  meager  record  it  appears  that  Jeroboam  did 
all  in  his  power  to  fulfil  the  public  trust  laid  upon  him.  There 
is  no  suggestion  of  tyranny  and  oppression.  Private  and 
public  interests  were  undoubtedly  faithfully  guarded.  May 
it  not  well  be  that  his  experience  in  charge  of  the  forced  levy 
had  not  only  given  him  invaluable  experience  as  an  adminis- 
trator, but  had  also  strengthened  his  sympathy  for  the  op- 
pressed? He  knew  their  sufferings  perhaps  better  than  any 
other  man  in  the  kingdom.  It  was  a  difficult  task  that  devolved 
upon  this  son  of  the  common  people,  for  Northern  Israel  was 
by  no  means  a  homogeneous  geographical  unit  and  Solomon's 
policy  had  done  little  to  develop  and  unite  them  except  in  their 
opposition  to  despotic  oppression.  The  Philistines  pressed 
them  hard  in  the  west,  and  Shishak  of  Egypt  in  his  looting 
expedition  overran  Northern  Israel,  as  well  as  Judah.  The 
one  important  act  that  is  recorded  of  Jeroboam  is  condemned 
by  the  biblical  historians,  but  it  is  an  index  of  his  spirit  and 
policy.  For  the  convenience  of  his  subjects  he  established 


100  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

not  one  royal  sanctuary,  as  had  Gideon  and  Solomon,  but 
two:  one  in  the  extreme  north  and  another  in  the  extreme 
south.  If  he  had  been  seeking  merely  to  strengthen  his  own 
ambitions,  he  would  have  naturally  lent  his  patronage  to  the 
local  sanctuary  at  his  capital  Shechem.  His  democratic 
tendencies  are  also  revealed  by  his  selection  of  priests  from 
among  all  the  people  who  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi.  To 
a  later  religious  historian  this  seemed  gross  impiety,  as  did 
also  his  public  participation  in  the  services  of  the  royal  sanc- 
tuaries, but  in  so  doing  he  was  not  only  following  earlier  well- 
established  traditions  but  also  carrying  into  the  national 
religion  his  democratic  ideas.  These  acts  also  suggest  that 
he  was  deeply  interested  in  all  that  vitally  concerned  his 
subjects.  For  over  two  decades  he  guided  the  troubled  des- 
tinies of  Northern  Israel,  and  at  his  death  his  independent 
subjects  endorsed  his  policy  by  electing  his  son  his  successor. 

The  division  of  the  Hebrew  Kingdom  in  937  B.C.  marked 
large  progress  in  denning  and  establishing  the  rights  of  man, 
and  in  developing  a  people  that  would  lend  a  ready  ear  to  the 
lofty  social  ideals  of  their  later  prophets.  It  also  precipitated 
in  time  the  series  of  political  crises,  which  called  forth  the  great 
social  and  religious  reformers  like  Elijah,  Amos,  Hosea,  and 
Isaiah,  who  transformed  men's  conception  of  God  and  of  their 
responsibilities  to  their  fellows.  It  destroyed  all  possibilities 
of  a  world  empire,  but  it  gave  to  men  a  vision  of  rulers  who 
would  attain  glory  by  being  the  servants  of  their  people  and 
of  the  one  divine  King,  ruling  in  justice  and  love  over  all 
mankind. 

Modern  governments  are  often  classified  as  monarchical, 
aristocratic,  and  democratic.  Can  the  various  church  organiza- 
tions be  similarly  classified?  What  are  the  advantages  and 
disadvantages  of  each  of  these  forms  of  organization  in  church 
and  state?  Does  the  present-day  English  or  German  reporter 
write  as  fair  an  account  of  the  great  European  war  as  did  the 
biblical  historian  of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  I? 

V. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  PEOPLE  TO  EXPRESS  AND  ENFORCE 

THEIR  WILL. 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  the  assembly  of  the  people  at  Shechem 
among  the  hills  of  Ephraim  to  the  halls  of  the  Continental 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  101 

Congress  in  Philadelphia.  And  yet  th£  detnands  cf  the'riorthern 
Israelites  upon  the  successor  of  King.  Solomon  ,%?%  ^  justified 
in  the  principles  of  the  Declaration"  of  ~  TBdte'peno.tTioe'  The 
demands  in  both  cases  embody  the  same  ideas.  The  founda- 
tions of  these  demands  are  also  substantially  the  same;  they 
are  found  in  human  nature — normal  mental  and  moral  growth 
for  each  and  every  individual.  Normal  moral  health  demands 
not  only  mental  activity  but  also  the  power  of  choice,  the 
right  of  initiative,  the  obligation  to  make  decisions. 

In  our  schools  little  children  memorize,  older  children  are 
taught  to  reason  and  are  given  certain  rights  of  initiative  and 
the  obligation  to  decide  upon  questions  laid  before  them. 
In  business  mere  clerks  do  routine  work,  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments, who  supervise  the  work  of  others,  must  take  the  re- 
sponsibility of  making  decisions.  The  manager  of  a  great 
business  has  time  to  do  little  except  to  formulate  plans  and 
to  make  decisions.  There  has  been  in  the  business  world  an 
outcry  against  the  great  industrial  combinations  because 
it  has  been  said  that  they  weaken  the  power  of  initiative,  that 
they  absorb  the  business  of  the  smaller  men  and  make  mere 
hired  men  of  those  who  formerly  had  to  carry  the  responsi- 
bilities of  an  independent  business.  Beyond  doubt,  if  justified 
by  facts,  this  charge  against  the  combinations  is  exceedingly 
grave.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  claimed  that  the  heads  of 
departments  in  the  industrial  combinations  are  given  the 
power  of  originating  plans,  of  making  decisions,  and  that 
they  are  held  responsible  primarily  only  for  results,  so  that 
they  have  the  same  power  of  initiative  as  in  an  independent 
business,  while  the  responsibility  is  more  direct,  and  that  in 
the  combination  nothing  is  lost  in  initiative,  while  much  is 
gained  in  training.  Whatever  the  facts  may  be  in  individual 
cases,  all  agree  that  it  is  an  essential  for  the  success  of  any 
business  that  the  power  of  initiative  be  encouraged.  In  many 
business  houses  at  the  present  time  a  suggestion  box  is  placed 
where  every  employee,  however  humble  his  position,  may 
make  suggestions  for  the  improvement  of  the  business;  and 
the  workers  are  even  stimulated  to  be  thoughtful  in  this  regard 
by  prizes  that  are  offered  for  the  best  suggestions. 

Inasmuch  as  the  government  in  any  state  more  or  less 
completely  controls  practically  all  of  the  activities  of  life, 
deciding  upon  the  forms  which  contracts  shall  take,  supervising 


102  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

the  preparation  of  me'dicines  and  the  sale  of  foods,  determining 
ther  conrjitipna.  of  marriage  and  divorce,  making  regulations 
for* the  protection  of  tie  he'alth  of  the  citizens;  and  even,  for 
the  protection  of  the  public,  ordering  individuals  to  lay  down 
their  lives  in  war,  it  is  evident  that  in  the  realm  of  government 
there  is  far  greater  opportunity  to  affect  the  welfare  of  in- 
dividuals and  of  states,  than  in  business.  It  is  in  consequence 
extremely  important  that  the  best  policy  be  followed  by  the 
government.  As  it  is  essential  that  children  be  guided  in  their 
activities,  so  primitive  peoples  are  under  the  immediate  con- 
trol of  the  father  or  chief  of  the  family  or  clan.  But  as  peoples 
grow  in  intelligence  and  experience,  the  individual  citizens 
must  act,  take  responsibilities,  be  given  opportunity  for  initia- 
tive and  choice,  in  order  to  secure  their  own  best  development. 

But  human  nature  is  selfish  and  it  is  found  that  rulers  often 
act  for  their  own  individual  welfare,  whether  this  be  for  the 
good  of  their  fellow  citizens  or  not.  As  we  have  seen,  partly 
perhaps  from  natural  inclination,  partly  because  it  was  es- 
sential for  the  development  of  his  kingdom,  David  put  in  the 
foreground  the  welfare  of  his  people.  Under  his  rule,  as 
in  days  that  had  preceded,  the  individual  carried  his  own 
responsibilities.  Solomon,  however,  in  selfishly  promoting  his 
own  power  and  magnificence,  neglected  the  welfare  of  the  people 
and  even  oppressed  them  in  order  that  he  might  satisfy  his 
pride  and  ambition. 

Many  centuries  later  we  find  that  the  lords  in  England  in 
the  early  days  had  the  opportunity  and  used  it  to  shape  legisla- 
tion in  their  own  interest  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  the  common 
people.  Similar  instances  are  found  among  the  great  land 
owners  in  Germany,  among  the  aristocrats  in  Russia;  and, 
for  that  matter,  wherever  any  class  in  the  community  is  able 
to  get  into  its  own  hands  the  power  of  government,  that  power 
is  likely  to  be  used  selfishly  and  not  with  due  regard  for  the  com- 
mon interest.  The  struggle  in  practically  every  state  should 
be  to  secure  such  use  of  the  power  of  government  that  the 
welfare,  not  of  one  class,  but  of  the  whole  shall  be  promoted. 
At  Shechem,  the  people  looking  back  to  the  customs  of  their 
ancestors,  under  which  the  people  had  possessed  the  right 
of  initiative  and  had  been  able  to  take  the  responsibilities 
which  make  for  the  building  of  character,  demanded  that 
they  be  given  back  the  freedom  they  had  earlier  possessed. 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  People  103 

This  demand  was  based  upon  the  fact  that  Solomon  had 
selfishly  sacrificed  their  interests.  They  did  not  propose  to 
permit  his  successor  to  continue  to  sacrifice  them,  as  he  had 
done. 

The  ideal  in  government,  if  the  above  considerations  are 
justified,  would  be  that  which  would  give  to  the  individual 
citizens  the  power  to  decide  what  the  policy  of  the  state  should 
be  and  under  which  each  individual  citizen  in  the  state  should 
have  the  desire  and  the  will  to  consider  the  welfare  of  all  the 
citizens,  so  that  the  government  would  exist  simply  to  promote 
the  general  welfare.  Only  a  people  schooled  in  self-discipline 
is  willing  in  such  circumstances  to  yield  to  the  authority  of 
law  as  formulated  by  the  majority  or  the  representatives  of 
the  majority.  But  for  people  skilled  in  popular  government 
this  readiness  to  submit  to  law  normally  accompanies  the 
ability  to  make  the  best  type  of  laws. 

To  what  extent  are  the  people  in  the  United  States  given 
the  freedom  of  choice  in  the  states  which  are  under  so-called 
"boss"  rule?  Could  we  speak  of  "freedom"  under  the  Czar 
of  Russia,  if  the  Czar  carried  out  the  will  of  his  people?  What 
would  Rehoboam  have  gained  if  he  had  assented  to  the  request 
of  his  people? 

Ought  an  employer  to  give  his  workmen  the  right  of  deter- 
mining what  the  policy  of  the  business  shall  be?  Give  the 
reasons  for  your  answer. 

In  a  country  like  that  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  where  the 
church  and  state  are  one,  would  these  same  principles  apply 
in  the  realm  of  religion? 

VI. 

WAYS  OF  EXPRESSING  THE  WILL  OP  THE  PEOPLE. 

It  is  immaterial  what  the  form  of  government  may  be  called, 
if  only  it  is  such  that  right  practical  results  are  achieved. 
Often  we  are  misled  by  words  in  the  discussion  of  such  ques- 
tions. We  speak  of  Great  Britain  as  a  "monarchy."  During 
the  days  that  the  recent  war  seemed  impending  the  government 
refused  to  take  a  definite  stand.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  Secretary 
of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  said  officially  that  the  government 
would  not  act  until  the  people's  desires  became  known.  As  soon 
as  an  event  had  occurred  that  seemed  to  crystallize  public 
opinion,  the  action  of  the  government  was  quick  and  reasonably 


104  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

sure.  In  the  light  of  these  and  many  similar  facts  shall  we  say 
that  England  is  in  fact  a  republic  or  a  monarchy? 

In  France  at  the  present  day  the  power  remains  with  the 
President  of  the  Republic  to  remove  from  office  the  prefect 
of  any  department  or  the  mayor  of  any  city.  The  government 
is  strongly  centralized,  substantially  according  to  the  plans 
first  put  into  effect  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  Yet  France  is 
a  republic  in  form.  Is  the  government  in  France  more  or 
less  democratic  than  that  of  England? 

Before  the  outbreak  of  the  European  war  the  Czar  of  Russia 
in  his  communication  to  the  German  Emperor  said  that  under 
certain  circumstances  he  could  not  restrain  his  people  and  that 
war  would  inevitably  come.  If  this  is  a  fact,  does  it  weaken  the 
autocracy  of  the  Czar?  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  native 
states  of  India  and  in  the  Federated  Malay  States,  by  the  side 
of  the  native  ruler  is  placed  a  British  "resident,"  whose  duty 
it  is  to  make  suggestions  and  to  give  advice  to  the  Sultan  or 
local  chief,  and  that  the  native  chief  must  follow  the  advice 
given  him,  although  the  laws  are  issued  and  put  into  effect 
in  the  name  of  the  native  ruler.  An  Englishman  traveling 
some  years  since  in  the  Federated  States  and  observing  these 
conditions  protested  vigorously  in  a  letter  to  the  London 
Times,  saying  that  in  fact  the  chief  had  been  deprived  of 
all  authority  and  that  England  was  acting  hypocritically. 
The  letter  was  translated  to  the  native  chief  referred  to  who 
replied:  "What  does  the  fellow  want?  The  English  now  do 
practically  all  the  work,  while  I  get  the  honor  and  the  pay. 
He  seems  to  want  me  to  do  all  the  work.  I  prefer  the  present 
conditions."  Was  the  chief  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  liberty 
and  self-government? 

The  people  may  express  their  will  in  various  ways,  either 
directly  in  a  general  assembly  by  the  clashing  of  their  swords 
against  their  shields  to  express  their  approval  of  measures 
proposed,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  or  by  the  show 
of  hands  in  a  general  assembly,  as  in  the  smaller  mountain 
cantons  of  Switzerland,  or  as  in  the  United  States  in  town 
meetings  by  oral  vote  or  ballot. 

The  people  may  express  their  will  through  representatives 
of  various  kinds.  Among  primitive  people  the  elders  of  the 
village  in  accordance  with  custom  hold  the  position  of  repre- 
sentatives through  general  assent.  A  king  is  sometimes  elected, 


The  Expression  of  the  Will  of  the  Peopk  105 

sometimes  he  inherits  his  position  and  title  under  a  regular 
constitution.  Such  constitutional  monarchies  are  often  con- 
trolled by  representatives  chosen  by  the  people.  The  essential 
fact  is  that  the  desires  of  the  people  are  carried  out  by  their 
representatives. 

Sometimes  a  representative  is  looked  upon  as  a  mere  mouth- 
piece of  his  constituents,  one  to  ascertain  their  wishes  and 
carry  them  out,  even  though  they  be  contrary  to  his  own 
views  and  convictions.  Others  believe  that  constituencies 
should  select  as  their  representative  some  man  who  under- 
stands their  needs,  who  has  their  confidence  and  who,  in  con- 
sequence, should  be  trusted  by  them  to  do  as  to  him  seems 
best,  even  though  his  views  as  an  expert  may  differ  from  those 
of  his  constituents. 

Which  is  the  better  principle  of  representative  government? 
Which  principle  is  the  one  more  commonly  followed? 

In  case  it  is  desired  to  change  radically  the  form  of  govern- 
ment, this  change  has  been  at  times  brought  about  by  violence, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  great  revolutions.  In  other  cases,  however, 
where  provision  has  been  made  beforehand,  such  a  change 
may  be  brought  about  peacefully  through  creating  or  amend- 
ing a  constitution.  The  ideal  would  seem  to  be  that  repre- 
sentatives be  chosen  for  their  ability  and  experience,  as  well 
as  for  their  general  views  on  public  questions,  and  then  be 
given  a  reasonable  amount  of  discretion  regarding  the  use  of 
their  votes,  without  any  citizen  feeling  that  he  is  misrepre- 
sented, and  that  provision  be  made  for  peaceful  changes,  even 
though  they  be  radical  in  their  nature. 

Is  a  lawyer  a  representative  of  his  client?  Do  you  give  your 
lawyer  discretion  in  using  his  judgment?  Is  a  physician  to 
be  considered  as  a  representative  of  his  patient  in  the  treat- 
ment of  disease?  Is  it  customary  to  give  him  full  discretion 
in  the  treatment  of  a  case?  Why?  Why  ought  not  a  con- 
gressman to  be  given  as  great  a  degree  of  liberty  in  determining 
the  policy  that  he  shall  follow  as  the  trained  expert  in  either 
law  or  medicine,  science  or  business?  Is  a  congressman  so 
trained  in  his  field  of  legislation  that  he  can  be  considered  an 
expert? 

When  President  Wilson  was  elected,  was  the  change  in 
our  governmental  policy  such  that  we  might  speak  of  it  as  a 
peaceful  revolution? 


106  The  Testing  of  a  Nation '«  Ideals 

The  first  President  of  the  Chinese  Republic,  Yuan  Shih-kai, 
in  the  opinion  of  some,  assumed  a  dictatorship.  Can  a  change 
be  made  quickly  from  a  despotism  to  a  real  democracy  with 
full  authority  in  the  people's  hands?  Why? 

Under  the  laws  of  most  of  our  States  a  man  is  said  to  "come 
of  age"  with  full  legal  rights  of  manhood,  at  twenty-one  years 
of  age.  Why  not  eighteen  years?  Or  twenty-five  years? 
Is  there  any  method  that  can  be  devised  by  which  the  capa- 
bilities of  decision  and  of  wise  action  may  be  determined  by 
examination? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Structure  and  Literary  History  of  I  Kings.     Kent,  Israel's  His- 
torical and  Biographical  Narratives,  pp.  14-18. 

(2)  Examine  the  question  of  establishing  a  referendum  on  constitu- 
tional amendments  and  on  important  laws  in  two  of  the  United  States 
having  such  referendum  or  in  Switzerland.     Give  an  opinion  somewhat  in 
detail  as  to  the  classes  of  laws  upon  which  the  American  electorate  is 
fairly  well  qualified  to  express  an  intelligent  judgment.     Lowell,  Public 
Opinion  and  Popular  Government. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

RELIGION  AND  POLITICS. 

ELIJAH'S  ARRAIGNMENT  OP  ARAB'S  POLICY. —  I  Kgs.  16:21 — 

19:43. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  8-23,  25-27. 
Croly,  Chap.  IX;  Lowell,  Chap.  XV. 

Then  Elijah  came  near  to  all  the  people  and  said,  How  long  are  you 
going  to  limp  between  the  two  sides?  If  Jehovah  be  God,  follow  him, 
but  if  the  Baal,  then  follow  him. — I  Kings  18: 21. 

No  man  can  serve  two  masters:  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love 
the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the  other. — Matt.  6: 2£. 

We  know,  and,  what  is  better,  we  feel  inwardly,  that  religion  is  the 
basis  of  civil  society,  and  the  source  of  all  good  and  of  all  comfort. — 
Burke. 

Our  human  laws  are  but  the  copies,  more  or  less  imperfect,  of  the  eternal 
laws,  so  far  as  we  can  read  them. — Froude. 

Democracy  is  better  for  us,  because  the  religious  sentiment  of  the 
present  time  accords  better  with  it. — Emerson. 


Religion  and  Politics  107 


ISRAEL'S  POLITICAL  PROBLEMS. 

Throughout  the  two  centuries  of  its  independent  existence 
Northern  Israel  was  confronted  by  many  grave  problems. 
Its  geographical  position  and  physical  attractiveness  exposed 
it  to  constant  peril.  On  the  southwest  were  the  warlike 
Philistines,  eager  to  extend  their  territory  and  to  keep  open 
the  great  highways  of  commerce  which  brought  to  them  their 
chief  wealth.  The  western  headlands  of  Judah  presented  a 
frowning  front;  but  broad,  open  valleys  ran  through  the  terri- 
tory of  Northern  Israel  from  east  to  west  and  north  to  south. 
The  wide  fertile  plain  of  Esdraelon  lay  in  its  very  center,  and 
across  it  passed  the  natural  highways  along  which  traders, 
immigrants,  and  conquering  armies  had  traveled  from  time 
immemorial.  It  also  separated  the  tribes  in  the  north  from 
those  in  central  Palestine,  while  from  north  to  south  ran  the 
deep  rift  of  the  Jordan  valley.  Thus  Northern  Israel  was 
divided  into  three  distinct  natural  units. 

Along  the  western  valleys  came  Philistine  armies  to  contest 
the  possession  of  the  border  towns.  On  the  southeast  the 
Moabites  were  constantly  seeking  to  push  their  boundaries 
northward  and  to  expel  or  subject  the  isolated  east- Jordan 
tribes.  During  the  first  half-century  the  relations  between 
the  northern  and  southern  Israelites  were  hostile;  but  when 
Baasha,  who  mounted  the  throne  of  Northern  Israel,  after 
slaying  the  son  of  Jeroboam,  pressed  Asa  of  Judah  too  hard, 
the  latter  called  to  his  help  a  nation  which  proved  one  of 
Israel's  deadliest  foes.  It  was  the  Aramean  kingdom  of 
Damascus.  Situated  in  a  fertile  basin  on  the  borders  of  the 
desert,  this  ancient  city  had  grown  rich  through  trade  and  the 
products  of  the  agricultural  territory  which  it  held  along  the 
slopes  of  the  Anti-Lebanon  mountains.  It  was  also  am- 
bitious to  extend  its  territory  and  sphere  of  influence  through- 
out southern  Palestine.  Control  of  the  land  held  by  the 
Northern  Israelites  was  essential,  if  it  was  to  carry  on  unim- 
peded trade  with  Egypt.  Thus  on  three  sides  Northern  Israel 
was  subject  to  almost  constant  attacks  of  strong,  persistent 
foes,  and  its  fertile  grain  fields  were  a  bait  attracting  its  greedy 
neighbors. 

Omri,  the  founder  of  the  strongest  dynasty  of  Israel,  was 


108  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

called  to  the  throne  while  leading  an  army  against  the  Philis- 
tines. He  it  was,  according  to  the  testimony  of  King  Mesha 
that  was  found  inscribed  on  the  famous  Moabite  stone,  who 
broke  the  power  of  his  southeastern  foes  and  for  a  generation 
held  the  cities  of  northern  Moab  in  subjection.  It  was  Omri, 
who  with  the  trained  instincts  of  a  general,  selected  a  high, 
sloping  hill  in  central  Ephraim  and  founded  the  strongly 
fortified  city  of  Samaria,  and  made  it  his  capital.  He  was 
also  the  first  of  Israel's  rulers  to  pay  tribute  to  Assyria,  as  is 
recorded  in  the  annals  of  Ashurnacirpal  Ill's  campaign  into 
northern  Syria  in  876  B.C.  During  the  later  years  of  his 
reign  Omri's  might  was  broken  by  the  attacks  of  the  Aramean 
armies  from  Damascus.  He  was  obliged  to  cede  certain  of 
his  territory  to  them  and  to  set  aside  certain  streets  or  quarters 
in  Samaria  for  the  Aramean  traders.  After  his  death  and  the 
accession  of  his  son  Ahab  the  Aramean  King  Benhadad  almost 
succeeded  in  completely  subjugating  Northern  Israel,  for  his 
armies  penetrated  to  the  very  gates  of  Samaria. 

In  what  respects  did  Omri  resemble  David?  As  a  rule  did 
the  danger  from  attack  from  without  develop  or  weaken  the 
nations  of  antiquity?  What  degree  and  types  of  opposition 
are  beneficial  to  nations?  To  individuals?  Were  economic 
forces  as  potent  in  ancient  Semitic  politics  as  today?  Illustrate. 

II. 

AHAB'S  POLITICAL  POLICY  AND  ITS  EFFECTS. 

Ahab  inherited  from  his  father  Omri  two  things:  a  broken 
and  almost  subjugated  kingdom  and  the  ambitions  and  ability 
of  a  statesman  and  organizer.  It  was  a  period  in  Israel's 
history  that  called  for  able,  broad-minded  leadership.  The 
first  task  was  to  repel  the  Aramean  invaders.  The  situation 
seemed  almost  hopeless;  but  Ahab's  followers  were  fighting 
in  desperation  for  their  homes  and  very  existence,  while  his 
foes  were  sated  with  victory  and  over-confidence.  In  the 
two  great  battles  against  the  Arameans  Ahab  showed  himself 
a  daring,  able  leader.  In  the  last  battle  at  Aphek  he  not  only 
liberated  his  people,  but  captured  Benhadad,  the  Aramean 
king.  Then,  doubtless  to  the  surprise  of  his  followers  and  in 
the  face  of  the  open  protest  and  condemnation  of  the  sons  of 
the  prophets,  he  set  Benhadad  free  and  concluded  with  him 


Religion  and  Politics  109 

a  treaty  that  gave  Ahab  possession  of  all  the  cities  conquered 
by  his  father  Omri  and  special  trading  quarters  in  Damascus 
for  Hebrew  merchants.  In  view  of  the  natural  strength  of 
Damascus  war  could  bring  him  no  more.  It  also  reveals  his 
policy.  Although  he  was  an  able  warrior,  he  appreciated  the 
superior  advantages  of  peace  and  commerce.  He  purposed  to 
build  up  and  strengthen  his  nation,  not  by  the  sword  but 
by  alliances  and  trade.  In  this  respect  he  was  far  in  advance 
of  his  barbarous  age.  Northern  Israel  had  rich  natural  re- 
sources. Its  grain  fields  bore  far  more  than  was  required  for 
the  support  of  its  inhabitants;  but  the  land  had  been  devastated 
and  its  resources  drained  by  the  protracted  wars.  More  than 
the  spoils  of  war  his  people  needed  rest  and  an  opportunity 
to  till  their  fields  and  to  rebuild  their  homes. 

Another  reason  may  also  have  influenced  Ahab  to  be  clement 
toward  his  fallen  foe:  it  was  the  approach  of  their  common 
enemy  Assyria.  He  may  have  been  far-sighted  enough  to 
have  seen  that  all  the  united  strength  of  the  peoples  of  Syria 
was  needed  to  repel  the  dread  invader.  From  the  annals 
of  Shalmaneser  II  we  learn  that  in  854  B.C.  both  the  Israelites 
and  Arameans  fought  side  by  side  in  a  great  but  indecisive 
battle  against  the  Assyrians.  The  fact  that  according  to  that 
record  Ahab  sent  more  chariots  into  the  battle  than  the  Ara- 
means is  explained  by  his  earlier  victory  at  Aphek. 

Ahab's  policy  was  in  many  respects  similar  to  that  of  Solomon. 
His  ambition  was  to  place  Northern  Israel  in  the  forefront 
among  the  nations  of  southwestern  Asia,  and  to  that  end  he 
or  his  father  Omri  had  made  a  treaty  with  their  western  neigh- 
bors, the  peaceful,  commercial  Phoenicians.  The  advantages 
of  such  an  alliance  are  obvious.  As  had  been  clearly  shown 
in  the  relations  between  Solomon  and  King  Hiram,  the  Phoe- 
nicians were  in  need  of  grain,  which  the  Hebrews  could  supply 
in  abundance,  and  they  vere  able  to  furnish  in  exchange 
the  military  equipment  and  the  products  of  art  and  civiliza- 
tion that  Ahab  required  for  the  realization  of  his  ambitions. 
This  alliance  meant  a  favorable,  nearby  market  and  a  valuable 
ally.  No  wonder  that  it  was  sealed  by  a  royal  marriage 
between  Ahab  and  the  daughter  of  the  king  of  Tyre.  By 
the  subjects  of  both  kings  this  marriage  was  doubtless  regarded 
as  an  act  of  wise  statesmanship. 

The  alliance  with  Tyre  might  have  brought  only  well-being 


110  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

to  both  peoples,  had  Jezebel,  who  became  Ahab's  wife,  been 
an  ordinary  oriental  woman.  But  she  was  the  daughter  of 
Ethbaal,  the  ex-priest  of  Baal,  who  had  mounted  the  throne 
of  Tyre  by  assassinating  his  royal  master,  and  Jezebel  was 
a  true  daughter  of  her  energetic,  ambitious,  unscrupulous 
father.  She  was  doubtless  a  woman  of  fascinating  personality, 
with  bold  spirit  and  eager  determination.  The  international 
courtesy  of  the  day  permitted  her  to  have  a  temple  of  her  god 
in  her  new  home,  Samaria,  and  the  Baal  priests  necessary  for 
its  service.  Alliances  between  Semitic  peoples  also  meant 
friendship  between  their  gods.  The  situation  in  Israel  was 
rendered  more  perilous  by  the  fact  that  many  of  the  Northern 
Israelites  had  Canaanite  blood  in  their  veins,  and  in  the  north 
many  of  the  Canaanite  religious  customs  and  shrines,  which 
were  identical  with  those  of  the  Phoenicians,  had  survived. 
The  Canaanite  cults  were  also  closely  connected  with  the 
agricultural  life  of  Northern  Israel  and  were  in  themselves 
exceedingly  attractive  to  a  pleasure-loving  people,  for  they  were 
joyous  and  gave  free  license  to  the  baser  passions.  In  this 
fertile  and  already  well-prepared  field  Jezebel  appears  to  have 
initiated  a  proselyting  campaign.  In  any  case  the  Israelites 
were  free  to  follow  the  Canaanite  customs  with  the  tacit 
approval  of  the  court.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Ahab  or  a 
majority  of  his  subjects  contemplated  for  a  moment  abandon- 
ing the  worship  of  Jehovah,  the  traditional  Baal  or  Master  of 
Israel,  but  they  were  quite  ready  to  make  friends  with  the 
ancient  baals  of  the  land  and  of  their  opulent  allies  in  the  west. 
Do  you  think  that  Ahab's  policy  had  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  his  subjects?  Why?  Did  Ahab  probably  regard 
himself  as  another  David  and  the  saviour  of  his  country? 
With  what  reason?  Did  the  sons  of  the  prophet  who  con- 
demned his  toleration  of  Benhadad  rightly  interpret  the  divine 
will?  Were  the  Spanish  inquisition  and  the  burning  of  witches 
in  early  New  England  originally  regarded  as  doing  the  will  of 
God?  What  crimes  have  been  committed  in  recent  times 
under  the  sanction  of  divine  authority?  How  far  is  there 
danger  of  interpreting  our  will  as  the  will  of  God? 


Religion  and  Politics  111 

III. 
ELIJAH  THE  TISHBITE. 

Elijah  is  one  of  the  most  dramatic  figures  in  Israel's  dramatic 
history.  The  biblical  historian  projects  him  into  the  narra- 
tive without  preface  or  introduction.  Like  a  storm-cloud  he 
sweeps  across  the  serene  horizon  of  the  middle  of  Ahab's 
reign.  He  is  a  gaunt,  austere,  outspoken  man,  clad  in  the 
grim  garb  of  the  desert-dweller.  He  comes  from  the  otherwise 
unknown  village  of  Tishbi  on  the  heights  of  Gilead,  east  of 
the  Jordan,  where  the  wandering  nomad  and  the  agriculturist 
meet,  and  where  the  traditions  of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Moses 
and  of  the  Wilderness,  were  still  cherished.  In  Ahab's  mind 
he  was  classed  with  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  who  had  opposed 
his  policy  of  alliance  and  expansion,  and  whom  he  had  in 
retaliation  attempted  to  hunt  from  the  land.  Amidst  the 
smiling,  vine-clad  hills  of  central  Israel  Elijah  seemed  sadly 
out  of  place.  In  fact  he  never  felt  at  home  in  the  great  cities 
of  Israel.  He  was  lacking  also  in  tact  and  diplomatic  skill. 
Indirection  and  compromise  were  unknown  to  him.  His 
strength  lay  in  his  clear,  direct  insight  and  in  his  uncompromis- 
ing boldness.  Elijah  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  older  type  of 
prophets.  He  had  much  in  common  with  Deborah  and  Samuel. 
He  was  able  unerringly  to  analyze  a  political  and  religious 
situation  that  escaped  or  baffled  the  more  learned  and  ex- 
perienced statesmen  of  his  day.  His  was  the  intuition  of  the 
child  that  simply  and  unquestioningly  arrives  at  true  con- 
clusions regarding  human  character  and  motives  where  those 
of  maturer  years  are  often  deceived.  Like  the  earlier  prophets, 
when  he  saw  a  fact  or  truth  he  proclaimed  it,  regardless  of 
the  consequences  to  himself.  Elijah  was  thus  the  enlightened 
conscience  of  his  nation.  By  Ahab  and  undoubtedly  by  a 
majority  of  his  contemporaries  he  was  regarded  as  "the  troubler 
of  Israel,"  a  fanatical  calamity  howler,  who  was  barring  national 
progress,  a  dangerous  character  who  should  be  suppressed 
or  hunted  from  the  land. 

Do  intellectual  training  and  culture  blunt  a  nation's  or  a 
man's  intuitive  appreciation  of  what  is  right  and  wrong? 
Why  is  it  that  children  are  often  better  judges  of  human  nature 
than  their  elders?  How  may  men  retain  the  child's  power 
of  intuitive  analysis?  Are  the  calamity  howlers  of  one  genera- 


112  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

tion  often  recognized  as  true  prophets  by  the  next?  Illustrate. 
What  unpopular  teachers  of  today  may  possibly  belong  to  that 
category?  Does  the  fear  of  seeming  queer  and  of  being  called 
calamity  howlers  often  deter  men  from  doing  their  best  work? 

IV. 
ELIJAH'S  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  CRISIS. 

The  world-wide  differences  between  Ahab's  and  Elijah's 
interpretation  of  the  political  and  religious  situation  in  North- 
ern Israel  were  due  to  their  diverse  point  of  view  and  training. 
Both  felt  that  they  were  right.  Ahab  was  conscious  of  the  sup- 
port of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  his  subjects;  Elijah,  of 
standing  almost  alone.  Ahab  trusted  to  his  processes  of  reason- 
ing ;  Elij  ah  felt  in  the  depths  of  his  consciousness  the  absolute  con- 
viction that  Jevohah  himself  was  speaking  to  and  through  him. 
Ahab's  point  of  view  and  training  were  those  of  a  man  reared  in 
the  most  advanced  center  of  the  mingled  Hebrew  and  Canaanite 
culture  that  had  developed  in  Northern  Israel.  The  sterner 
moral  ideals  that  the  ancestors  of  the  Hebrews  had  brought  from 
the  wilderness  and  learned  from  the  lips  of  Moses  had  been  ener- 
vated by  wealth  and  comparative  luxury  and  undermined  by  the 
insidious  influence  of  the  degenerate,  materialistic  Canaanite 
civilization  that  in  the  north  had  so  largely  absorbed  Israel's 
earlier  loyalty  to  Jehovah.  The  sanctity  of  the  marriage  re- 
lation, the  integrity  of  rulers  and  judges  and  the  sense  of  social 
responsibility  were  all  being  severely  tested,  and  great  was  the 
danger  that  they  would  be  abandoned  by  the  luxury-loving, 
ambitious  sons  of  the  north. 

Elijah,  reared  in  the  older  environment,  taught  from  infancy 
to  abhor  the  Canaanite  cults  and  licentiousness,  clearly  saw 
the  peril.  He  recognized  that  Northern  Israel  under  the 
strong  leadership  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel  was  in  imminent  danger, 
while  finding  its  national  life,  of  losing  its  soul.  The  problem 
that  confronted  and  at  times  seemed  to  baffle  him  was  how 
to  make  his  countrymen  see  the  peril  and  avert  it.  At  first 
he  appears  to  have  gone  directly  to  King  Ahab  and  protested 
to  him  against  the  current  tendencies.  When  he  was  received 
with  contempt  by  the  king  he  uttered  his  warnings  to  the 
people,  probably  thereby  winning  the  taunting  title,  "Troubler 
of  Israel."  It  is  possible  that  he  next  aroused  some  of  the 


Religion  and  Politics  113 

members  of  the  prophetic  guilds,  known  as  the  sons  of  the 
prophets,  with  which  he  was  closely  connected,  to  join  in  a 
campaign  of  protest.  This  would  explain  why  Obadiah,  the 
religiously  inclined  prefect  of  Ahab's  palace,  had  at  the  risk  of 
his  own  life  hid  a  hundred  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  in  caves 
to  guard  them  from  Jezebel's  wrath  and  proselyting  zeal. 
These  zealous,  though  fanatical,  champions  of  the  Jehovah 
religion  undoubtedly  exerted  some  influence  upon  the  common 
people;  but  their  protests  and  those  of  Elijah  only  aroused 
the  bitter  persecution  of  Ahab  and  probably  of  many  of  the 
leaders  of  the  nation. 

The  only  hope  of  reaching  and  moving  the  conscience  of 
Israel  was  to  appeal  from  king  and  rulers  to  the  people,  as  has 
often  been  done  in  modern  times,  even  in  America,  when  a 
ruler  or  reformer  has  felt  that  the  leaders  of  parties  or  the 
lawmakers  were  sacrificing  the  best  interests  of  the  nation 
to  temporal,  selfish  ends.  As  has  often  been  the  case  in  history, 
a  striking  natural  phenomenon  made  this  possible  in  a  most 
effective  way.  The  actual  facts  are  clearly  recorded  in  the 
picturesque,  concrete  symbolism  of  later  story.  The  traditions 
regarding  Elijah  and  Elisha  came  to  us  as  they  were  probably 
told  among  the  prophetic  guilds  of  Northern  Israel  and  Judah 
two  or  three  generations  after  these  prophets  lived.  The 
supernatural  elements  that  have  been  woven  into  them  in 
such  unparalleled  profusion  are  nevertheless  important,  for 
they  reveal  the  impression  that  the  personality  of  each  of  these 
great  prophets  made  upon  their  own  and  later  generations. 
The  prologue  to  the  epoch-making  assembly  on  Mount  Carmel 
was  the  terrible  drouth  that,  according  to  the  Greek  writer 
Meander,  occurred  during  the  reign  of  Ittobaal  of  Tyre  and 
lasted  one  full  year.  Both  Phoenicians  and  Hebrews  regarded 
this  terrible  calamity  as  a  judgment  sent  by  their  Deity. 
It  prepared  the  mind  of  Ahab  and  his  counsellors  for  Elijah's 
bold  demand,  presented  to  the  king  in  person  by  the  intrepid 
prophet:  "Send  now  and  gather  the  fifty  prophets  of  the  Baal, 
who  eat  at  Jezebel's  table."  A  contest  or  debate  makes  a 
universal  appeal  especially  to  that  elemental  fighting  instinct 
which  was  exceedingly  strong  in  Ahab's  character.  The 
unusual  character  of  Elijah's  request  also  undoubtedly  fas- 
cinated the  king.  Doubtless  he  was  conscious  of  a  deep  under- 
current of  popular  discontent.  "This  drouth  is  Jehovah's 


114  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

punishment  of  Ahab's  persecution  of  the  prophets"  was  on 
many  lips,  and  Ahab  himself  probably  more  than  half  believed 
it.  Here,  however,  was  an  opportunity  to  conciliate  the 
prophets  and  people.  The  proposal  that  the  Baal  prophets 
be  invited  also  was  as  attractive  as  it  was  surprising.  It 
suggested  full  representation  of  all  the  varied  religious  parties 
in  his  kingdom  and  the  possibilities  of  an  agreement  and  com- 
pact between  them.  In  any  case  the  king  readily  acceded 
to  Elijah's  request. 

On  the  commanding  height  that  rises  in  the  heart  of  central 
Israel,  easily  accessible  to  all  and  yet  above  the  agricultural 
environment  of  the  broad  valleys  below,  the  representatives 
of  the  people  met  together.  The  effects  of  the  blighting 
drouth  were  in  evidence  as  far  as  the  eye  could  reach,  and  the 
air,  even  on  the  mountain  plateau,  was  hot  and  stifling.  Evi- 
dences of  Jehovah's  displeasure  engulfed  the  people  and  thirst 
and  hunger  within  emphasized  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
divine  protest.  When  the  gaunt,  severe,  dauntless  prophet 
rose  before  them,  he  had  at  last  an  audience  prepared  for  his 
message.  Clear  and  direct  as  a  lightning  flash  it  came  to 
them.  It  revealed  the  whole  religious  issue  stripped  of  all 
its  complexities  and  allurements:  "How  long  are  you  going  to 
limp  between  the  two  sides?  If  Jehovah  be  God,  follow  him; 
but  if  Baal,  then  follow  him."  Tradition  has  embellished 
the  scene,  but  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  Elijah  had  done  all 
that  any  true  prophet  could  do;  he  had  presented  the  facts 
and  appealed  directly  to  the  conscience  of  the  nation.  In 
graphic  words  he  declared:  "You  are  making  absurd,  pathetic 
efforts  to  serve  two  gods,  to  hold  two  types  of  faith,  diamet- 
rically opposed.  The  task  is  impossible.  Choose  one  or 
the  other  and  be  loyal  to  him."  No  answer  came  at  the 
moment  from  the  people,  but  the  next  quarter  century  showed 
beyond  question  that  Elijah's  words  had  touched  the  popular 
conscience  and  evoked  a  true  response.  The  narrative  implies 
that  the  prophets  of  Baal  were  given  ample  opportunity  to 
present  their  cause,  but  it  evoked  no  response  from  god  or  man. 
The  narrative  states  that  they  were  slain  by  the  people  at 
Elijah's  command  beside  the  Kishon  below,  even  as  were 
the  Canaanites  beside  the  same  historic  brook  centuries  before 
by  the  Hebrew  warriors  who  followed  Deborah  and  Barak. 
At  last  the  full  meaning  of  the  great  religious  crisis  was  clear 


Religion  and  Politics  115 

even  to  the  humblest  and  most  obtuse  in  Northern  Israel; 
the  popular  conscience  had  been  thoroughly  aroused.  The 
sinister  meaning  of  Ahab's  policy  and  of  Jezebel's  proselyting 
was  revealed.  Time  and  circumstance  would  give  the  people 
opportunity,  as  they  did  in  gory  terms  in  the  revolution  of 
Jehu,  to  express  their  deep  conviction  and  determination  to 
limp  no  longer  between  two  sides. 

Do  you  think  that  what  they  beheld  on  Mount  Carmel 
was  a  special  miracle?  Does  a  striking  natural  phenomenon 
often  afford  the  opportunity  for  a  religious  or  social  leader 
to  attain  moral  ends?  How  far  were  the  people  justified  in 
regarding  it  as  a  direct  divine  judgment?  Why  does  the 
miraculous  element  abound  in  the  Elijah  and  Elisha  stories, 
while  it  is  entirely  lacking  in  the  contemporary  record  of  Amos 
and  Hosea?  What  light  does  the  different  type  of  miracles 
recounted  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  throw  upon  the  character  of 
each  of  these  prophets?  In  calling  for  a  great  popular  assembly 
was  Elijah  reasserting  the  rights  of  the  people?  What  other 
memorable  assembly  of  the  Northern  Israelites  did  it  recall? 

V. 

THE  CONFLICT  AND  RECONCILIATION  OP  POLITICS 
AND  RELIGION. 

Never  in  Israel's  history  did  the  conflict  between  the  de- 
mands of  practical  politics  and  applied  religion  seem  so  sharp 
as  in  the  days  of  Ahab.  If  Ahab  and  his  counsellors  had 
acceded  at  once  to  Elijah's  demands  they  would  have  banished 
all  traces  of  the  Phoenician  Baal  cult  from  the  land.  This 
would  have  meant,  not  only  that  Ahab  would  have  been 
exposed  to  the  rage  of  an  infuriated  and  determined  queen, 
but  also  the  severing  of  the  profitable  alliance  with  Tyre,  the 
closing  of  Israel's  best  market,  and  the  cutting  off  of  its  chief 
source  of  military  supplies  at  a  time  when  the  nation  was  in 
constant  danger  of  attack.  To  Ahab  and  his  statesmen  this 
seemed  an  impossible  price  to  pay  for  mere  ease  of  conscience. 
Besides  Jehovah  was  still  the  recognized  God  of  Israel,  and  the 
toleration  of  Baal  worship  was  regarded  by  them  as  simply  a 
common  act  of  international  courtesy. 

In  the  light  of  a  broader  perspective  the  true  reconciliation 
is  revealed.  No  political  policy  is  practical  for  a  nation  that 


116  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

does  not  conserve  its  largest  and  most  permanent  interests. 
Israel  was  not  weak  in  material  resources.  Its  supreme  need 
was  a  force  to  bind  together  into  close  unity  its  naturally  dis- 
similar and  dissevered  elements.  Its  chief  peril  was  not,  after 
all,  foreign  foes,  but  the  internal  strife  and  luxury  and  licentious- 
ness that  threatened  to  destroy  its  virility  and  power  of  resist- 
ance. Loyalty  to  Jehovah,  complete  and  undivided,  was  the 
one  force  capable  of  uniting  the  nation,  and  also  the  only  one 
capable  of  preserving  it.  The  seductive,  pernicious  influence 
of  the  Baal  cults  was  the  great  disintegrating,  weakening  factor 
in  Israel's  life.  On  the  simple  basis  of  practical  politics,  dis- 
loyalty to  Jehovah  and  a  weak  toleration  of  Baalism  was 
the  worst  policy  Israel  could  possibly  pursue.  Ahab  per- 
sisted in  this  short-sighted  policy  and  thereby  wrecked  his 
dynasty  and  nearly  ruined  his  kingdom.  As  soon  as  he  ceased 
to  command  the  confidence  of  his  people  in  his  loyalty  to  the 
God  of  the  nation,  they  were  ready,  as  the  event  proved,  to 
follow  the  lead  of  an  aggressive  revolutionist.  The  struggle 
between  antagonistic  religious  parties  caused  the  best  blood 
of  Israel  to  be  needlessly  shed.  Immorality,  due  to  the  in- 
fluence of  Baalism,  and  the  lack  of  united  and  consistent 
action  were  the  chief  causes  of  the  final  downfall  of  the  northern 
kingdom.  Modern  history  abounds  in  illustrations  of  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  real  conflict  between  the  demands  of 
politics  and  religion  and  that  the  greatest  evil  that  can  befall 
a  nation  is  for  its  statesman  to  neglect  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  all  great  religions.  As  nations  are  bound  together 
more  and  more  closely  and  politics  become  more  international, 
the  seeming  conflict  between  politics  and  religion  is  more 
completely  eliminated.  The  dream  of  the  greatest  prophets 
throughout  the  ages  has  been  a  federation  of  man,  in  which 
the  petty  jealousies  and  intrigues  of  nations  would  disappear 
and  all  the  human  race  be  united  in  conserving  the  highest 
welfare  of  humanity.  On  this  ultimate  foundation  the  aims 
of  politics  and  of  religion  become  absolutely  one. 

Which  of  the  great  nations  of  today  have  been  founded  and 
guided  throughout  certain  periods  of  their  history  by  the 
principles  of  religion?  Name  countries  and  periods.  What 
countries  illustrate  at  times  the  evils  that  come  from  the 
lack  of  such  guidance?  Illustrate.  Have  some  of  the  most 
disastrous  political  blunders  of  modern  history  been  made 


Religion  and  Politics  117 

as  a  result  of  neglecting  the  fundamental  principles  of  religion 
and  morality?  Cite  illustrations.  Does  the  reconciliation  of 
politics  and  religion  mean  the  reunion  of  church  and  state? 
If  not,  why  not? 

VI. 

MODERN  POLITICS  AND  RELIGION. 

The  belief  is  current  in  many  minds  today  that  good  politics 
is  bad  religion  and  that  a  rigid  adherence  to  the  Ten  Command- 
ments and  above  all  to  the  fundamental  teachings  of  Jesus 
unfits  a  man  for  success  in  political  life.  This  is  possibly  true 
for  a  brief  period,  though  not  in  the  long  run,  if  a  man's  aim 
in  entering  politics  is  his  own  personal  advancement  and 
profit.  In  certain  cities  and  countries  men  have  at  times 
won  office  and  held  positions  for  a  little  time  by  corrupt  or 
barbarous  methods,  but  there  is  little  doubt  that  such  cases  are 
becoming  less  and  less  common  in  all  civilized  Christian  lands. 
Men  are  beginning  to  discover  that  so-called  "good  politics" 
is  in  the  highest  degree  inimical  to  the  common  good.  The 
ultimate  aim  of  all  rightful  political  organization  and  activity  is 
the  welfare  of  the  people.  Religion  preserves  and  sanctions  those 
laws  and  methods  which,  experience  has  taught,  best  conserve 
the  interest  of  individuals  and  of  society.  Really  good  politics 
is  therefore  impossible,  unless  in  accord  with  the  principles 
of  religion.  Usually  this  accord  comes  through  the  personal 
activity  of  those  who  regulate  their  lives  in  accordance  with 
those  principles. 

Should  the  priests  and  preachers  of  religion  actively  enter 
the  field  of  politics?  Do  you  think  that  they  should  publicly 
and  officially  support  a  political  party?  If  not,  in  what  ways 
can  they  more  effectively  raise  the  political  standards  of  their 
community  and  state?  What  men  in  your  opinion  have  done 
most  for  your  city  and  community  in  recent  years?  For 
your  country?  Why? 

Is  it  not  possible  for  a  man  to  have  a  profound  influence 
upon  his  government  without  holding  office  or  taking  any  active 
part  in  elections?  How? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  The    Contemporary    Testimony   of   the    Moabite    Stone.    Kent, 
Historical  and  Biographical  Narratives,  pp.  494-496. 

(2)  Study  the  relations  between  the   English   government   and  the 


118  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

Established  Church  in  England,  as  regards  representation  of  the  Church 
in  the  House  of  Lords  and  the  ways  in  which  the  members  of  the  Clergy 
are  educated,  appointed  and  supported.  Express  your  judgment  regard- 
ing the  effects  of  this  relationship  upon  (a)  the  promotion  of  reforms  in 
politics  and  social  legislation  and  (6)  upon  the  religious  influence  of  the 
Clergy,  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  CITIZENSHIP. 
THE  STORY  OF  NABOTH'S  VINEYARD. — I  Kgs.  21. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  23-25,  28,  29,  32-35,  41-53. 
Croly,  Chap.  X;  Lowell,  Chap.  XVI. 

Now  Naboth  the  Jezreelite  had  a  vineyard  beside  the  palace  of  Ahab, 
king  of  Samaria.  And  Ahab  spoke  to  Naboth,  saying,  Give  me  your 
vineyard,  that  I  may  have  it  for  a  vegetable  garden,  because  it  is  near 
my  house,  and  I  will  give  you  a  better  vineyard  for  it;  or,  if  it  is  more 
satisfactory  to  you,  I  will  give  you  the  value  of  it  in  money. — I  Kings 
21:1,8. 

Then  Jezebel  wrote  letters  in  Ahab's  name  and  sealed  them  with  his 
seal,  and  sent  the  letters  to  the  elders  and  the  nobles  who  were  in  his  city, 
who  presided  with  Naboth.  And  she  wrote  in  the  letters,  Proclaim  a  fast 
and  also  place  Naboth  in  a  prominent  place  among  the  people.  Then 
place  two  base  men  before  him  and  let  them  bear  witness  against  him, 
saying,  You  have  cursed  God  and  the  king.  And  then  carry  him  out 
and  stone  him  to  death. — /  Kings  21: 8-10. 

This  is  true  Liberty  when  freeborn  men, 

Having  to  advise  the  public,  may  speak  free. — Horace. 

A  king  ruleth  as  he  ought,  a  tyrant  as  he  lists,  a  king  to  the  profit  of  all, 
a  tyrant  only  to  please  a  few. — Aristotle. 

I. 

THE  ORIENTAL  ATTITUDE  TOWARD  INDIVIDUAL  RIGHTS. 

Undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  marked  differences  between  the 
East  and  the  West  is  the  prevailing  attitude  toward  individual 
liberty.  The  westerner  will  sacrifice  almost  every  other 
possession — wealth,  prosperity,  even  life — to  secure  and 
protect  it.  The  ancient  oriental  knew  or  thought  no  more 
about  the  equality  of  man  than  his  modern  descendant  does 


The  Rights  of  Citizenship  119 

about  pragmatism.  What  the  ordinary  oriental  most  dreaded 
was  too  much  personal  liberty,  for  it  meant  isolation  and 
defenselessness.  His  chief  ambition  was  to  align  himself 
closely  with  the  communal  organization,  whether  it  be  the 
family  or  tribe  or  state,  and  thereby  to  be  assured  of  protection 
and  maintenance  in  case  of  danger  or  misfortune.  The  great 
majority  of  the  people  of  Israel  were  eager  to  secure  the  patron- 
age of  a  strong  chief  or  noble,  who  would  champion  their  cause 
in  the  law  courts  and  better  still  protect  them  from  the  aggres- 
sions of  their  designing  neighbors  and  rivals.  This  fact  explains 
why  many  free-born  Hebrews  voluntarily  assumed  the  obliga- 
tions of  slavery  for  themselves  and  their  descendants.  It 
was  of  course  a  choice  between  two  evils,  that  of  penury  and 
violence  at  the  hands  of  the  strong  and  unprincipled  or  the 
subject  relation  with  the  assurance  of  food  and  shelter  and 
ample  protection.  This  feeling  to  a  great  extent  explains 
why  there  was  such  a  huge  slave  and  serf  class  in  the  old  oriental 
monarchies  like  Babylonia  and  Egypt.  It  meant  a  small 
ruling  class  and  a  large  body  of  dependents.  The  individual 
rights  of  the  great  majority  were,  therefore,  in  the  keeping 
of  irresponsible  rulers.  Their  control  of  those  subject  to 
them  was  not  merely  political  but  also  economic,  and  was 
unchecked  by  any  ideas  of  individual  equality  or  organized 
movements  to  secure  personal  liberty.  It  is  not  strange, 
therefore,  that  many  of  the  ancient  oriental  rulers  became 
cruelly  despotic  and  unhesitatingly  crushed  any  subject 
who  stood  in  the  way  of  the  realization  of  their  personal 
desires.  Ancient  oriental  history  abounds  in  gory  illustrations. 
Even  in  the  present  generation  it  is  stated  on  good  authority 
that  whenever  the  late  Sultan  of  Turkey,  Abdul  Hamid,  wished 
to  acquire  an  estate  belonging  to  one  of  his  wealthy  subjects, 
the  body  of  his  victim  would  before  long  be  seen  floating  down 
the  Bosporus  and  all  that  the  Turkish  police  would  do  was 
to  cover  the  corpse  with  a  mat  to  screen  the  crime  from  public 
gaze.  Confiscation  of  the  estates  of  the  murdered  man  would 
soon  follow  without  a  single  note  of  public  protest. 

What  are  the  underlying  psychological  and  economic  causes 
of  the  remarkable  development  of  fraternal  and  beneficiary 
organization  in  America  within  the  present  generation?  Is 
that  development  normal  and  on  the  whole  conducive  to  the 
welfare  of  society?  How  does  it  affect  the  efficiency  of  the 


120  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

church?  Is  this  development  due  to  the  fact  that  the  church 
has  not  extended  its  functions  so  as  to  meet  the  fundamental 
needs  of  man?  In  what  ways  are  the  modern  alliances  be- 
tween capital  and  political  power  similar  to  the  ancient 
oriental  despotisms?  How  does  this  differ  from  the  control  of 
the  government  by  labor  organizations? 

II. 
ARAB'S  PERVERSION  OP  JUSTICE  FOR  PERSONAL  ENDS. 

Jezebel  brought  to  the  court  of  Ahab  the  perverted  ideals  of 
the  oriental  ruling  class.  Inasmuch  as  a  king  stood  in  the  way 
of  realizing  the  ambition  of  her  father  Ethbaal,  he,  although  a 
priest,  had  not  hesitated  to  resort  to  assassination.  A  woman  of 
Jezebel's  strong  personality  exerted  a  powerful  influence  over 
her  husband.  Moreover  his  ambitions  led  him  to  lend  a 
ready  ear  to  her  seductive  philosophy.  The  murder  of  Naboth 
is  significant  in  itself,  but  it  also  revealed  Ahab's  real  character 
and  policy  to  his  subjects.  It  was  probably  more  potent  in 
bringing  about  the  final  overthrow  of  his  family  than  his 
toleration  of  Baalism.  The  opinions  of  the  common  people 
regarding  their  rulers  are  more  often  formed  from  acts  like 
this  than  from  the  state  policies  the  same  rulers  advocate. 

The  story  is  exceedingly  realistic  and  full  of  homely  touches. 
Ahab  and  his  queen  Jezebel  wanted  to  add  a  vegetable  garden 
to  their  royal  estate  at  Jezreel,  out  on  the  fertile  plain  of  Es- 
draelon.  The  king,  well  aware  of  the  firmly  fixed  property 
laws  of  Israel,  tried  in  an  honorable  way  to  acquire  the  adjacent 
vineyard;  but  Naboth,  its  owner,  obstinately  refused  to  sell 
his  hereditary  estate.  Ahab,  recognizing  how  impregnably 
Naboth's  position  was  guarded  by  Israel's  traditions  and  that 
even  a  king  could  not  dispossess  him,  went  home  and  to  bed 
in  ill-humor.  It  is  not  clear  whether  love  for  Ahab  or  for 
fresh  vegetables  or  pique  because  of  Naboth's  obstinacy 
inspired  Jezebel.  In  any  case  the  present  story  is  the  later 
concrete  version  of  the  Fall  of  Man.  Ahab  undoubtedly 
knew  the  method  she  would  employ  to  secure  the  coveted 
vegetable  garden.  Its  boldness  and  simplicity  perhaps  fas- 
cinated him.  Its  assumption  that  his  power  was  absolute 
was  flattering  to  a  king  who  had  just  been  forcibly  reminded 
of  the  fixed  limitations  of  his  authority. 


The  Rights  of  Citizenship  121 

Jezebel's  action  illustrates  the  worst  fruits  of  absolutism. 
Not  only  did  she  plot  deliberately  to  murder  Naboth  but  in 
so  doing  she  threatened  the  entire  political  and  judicial  organiza- 
tion of  the  nation.  A  shudder  must  have  gone  through  all 
Israel,  for  if  a  man  in  high  position  as  was  Naboth  could  be 
falsely  condemned  by  public  officials  and  publicly  stoned  by 
his  fellow-citizens  simply  at  the  command  of  a  foreign-born 
queen,  no  one  could  feel  secure.  Ahab's  share  in  the  crime 
was  even  more  ignominious  than  that  of  Jezebel,  for  he  allowed 
his  wife  to  do  the  contemptible  work  and  then  reaped  its  fruits. 

Which  is  the  more  reprehensible,  the  crooked  politician 
who  directly  bribes  voters,  or  the  candidate  with  far  higher 
ideals  who  tacitly  accepts  the  methods  of  the  party  machine? 
The  traveling  salesman,  who  presents  a  personal  gift  to  the 
agent  who  purchases  his  goods,  or  the  president  of  the  cor- 
poration who  winks  at  these  questionable  methods? 

III. 

ELIJAH'S  ADVOCACY  OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL. 

When  Ahab  set  out  to  take  possession  of  Naboth's  vineyard, 
acquired  at  so  great  a  cost,  the  news  undoubtedly  spread 
like  wild-fire  throughout  Jezreel  and  far  beyond,  but  every 
mouth  save  one  was  mute  with  terror.  Fortunate  indeed 
was  ancient  Israel  that  it  had  reared  up  a  class  of  men  who 
enjoyed  unique  authority  and  whose  duty  it  was  to  speak  at 
such  a  time.  No  man  in  Israel,  not  even  Ahab  himself,  doubted 
the  king's  guilt,  but  none  dared  raise  a  word  of  protest  except 
Elijah.  Like  Nathan  of  old,  he  went  straight  to  the  king  and 
caught  him  in  his  infamy  just  as  he  was  entering  upon  the 
possession  of  the  fruits  of  his  cowardly  connivance  in  Jezebel's 
crime.  Elijah,  as  always,  shot  directly  to  the  point  without 
preface:  "Have  you  killed  and  also  taken  possession?"  Ahab 
offered  no  excuse,  although  by  his  words  he  apparently  sought 
to  imply  that  personal  antagonism  inspired  Elijah:  "Have 
you  found  me,  O  mine  enemy?"  The  prophet's  sententious 
reply,  "I  have,"  was  full  of  grim  significance. 

It  is  not  clear  whether  or  not  the  exact  form  of  Elijah's 
prediction  was  determined  by  the  later  narrator's  knowledge 
of  subsequent  events.  Elijah's  words:  "In  the  place  where 
the  dogs  licked  the  blood  of  Naboth  will  the  dogs  lick  thy  blood 


122  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

also,"  may  have  been  simply  the  prophet's  graphic  putting 
of  the  old  law  of  blood  vengeance.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
prediction  was  not  literally  fulfilled.  Naboth  was  a  citizen 
of  Jezreel  and  was  publicly  stoned  in  the  open  space  hi  that 
northern  city;  while  the  wounded  Ahab  returned  after  his 
fatal  battle  at  Ramoth  in  Gilead  to  his  capital,  Samaria,  and 
it  was  there  that  the  dogs  licked  his  blood.  The  significant 
fact  is  that  Elijah  was  not  uttering  a  specific  prediction,  but 
was  rather  laying  down  in  concrete  terms  the  great  principle  of 
moral  responsibility  and  the  inevitable  consequences  of  wrong- 
doing. Even  under  the  malign  influence  of  Jezebel,  Ahab 
had  not  lost  all  moral  sense.  At  least  he  still  feared  the  divine 
judgment  or,  as  we  should  say  today,  the  outworking  of  the 
fundamental  law  which  he  had  violated,  for  he  assumed  the 
garb  of  mourning  and  "went  about  quietly."  His  subsequent 
record  suggests  that  the  dominant  feeling  in  his  mind  was 
not  true  repentance  but  simply  fear  of  the  consequences  of 
his  crime.  There  is  no  indication  that  he  for  a  moment  aban- 
doned his  policy  of  absolutism  or  attempted  to  make  reparation 
to  the  family  of  Naboth  or  made  public  confession  to  his 
subjects  whose  hereditary  rights  he  had  outraged. 

Elijah  belongs  to  the  older  group  of  prophets  or  seers.  He 
was  clothed  with  the  mystery  and  dignity  of  the  ancient  men 
of  God.  His  method  was  chiefly  that  of  protest.  With 
the  later  prophets,  who,  like  Elisha  and  Hosea  and  Isaiah, 
lived  among  the  people,  studied  their  detailed  problems, 
counselled  and  taught  them  in  the  way  of  right,  he  had  little 
in  common.  But  he  was  nevertheless  a  connecting  link  between 
the  earlier  seers  and  the  later  religious  and  social  reformers, 
for  he  was  the  first  to  espouse  the  right  of  the  individual  and 
to  raise  the  cry  of  protest  against  the  cruel  aggressions  and 
oppressions  of  the  rich  and  ruling  class.  Thus  Elijah  was  a 
pioneer,  heralding  the  coming  of  Amos  and  Isaiah  and  the 
supreme  Teacher  of  social  righteousness;  but  he  was  little 
more  than  a  lone  voice  crying  in  the  wilderness,  for  he  ap- 
parently made  no  attempt  to  define  the  ideals  and  methods 
of  social  service  and  reform.  Rather  he  was  the  interpreter 
and  defender  of  Israel's  earlier  and  simpler  institutions — a 
disciple  of  Moses,  not  a  member  of  the  unique  group  of  eighth 
and  seventh  century  prophets,  who  ethicized  and  socialized 
Israel's  inherited  religions.  But  in  his  courage,  his  energy 


The  Rights  of  Citizenship  123 

and  his  devotion  to  the  ideals  of  his  nation  in  a  period  of  great 
peril,  Elijah  stands  among  the  greatest  of  Israel's  prophets. 

Was  Elijah  lacking  in  tact  in  his  dealing  with  Ahab?  Which 
was  the  more  guilty,  Ahab  or  Jezebel?  What  should  Ahab 
have  done  to  make  reparation  for  his  great  crime?  Why 
was  Ahab's  crime  more  of  a  public  menace  than  David's 
murder  of  Uriah?  Is  the  degree  of  crime  proportionate  to 
the  evil  that  it  brings  to  society?  Cite  modern  illustrations 
of  crimes  similar  in  their  social  effects  to  that  of  Ahab. 

IV. 
THE  CONSEQUENCES  OP  AHAB'S  DESPOTIC  POLICY. 

Ahab  is  a  familiar  type  in  our  modern  life.  He  was  a  man 
of  large  ability  and  ambitions.  Today  he  would  have  been 
a  great  captain  of  industry.  He  knew  how  to  organize  men, 
how  to  inspire  them  to  great  effort;  he  had  a  broad  knowledge 
of  facts  and  was  able  to  develop  a  consistent  plan,  to  carry 
it  to  completion  whatever  be  the  opposition.  Like  many 
masterful  men,  he  made  the  fatal  mistake  of  not  listening 
to  the  good  counsels  of  others  or  of  his  own  conscience.  Both 
spoke  to  him  with  remarkable  clearness  and  insistence.  His 
mistakes  were  not  through  ignorance.  He  deliberately  chose 
to  do  his  own  will,  and  he  and  his  nation  paid  the  consequences. 

One  of  the  final  acts  of  Elijah  was  to  associate  with  himself 
the  son  of  a  wealthy  farmer  of  eastern  Ephraim.  Elisha 
was  trained  as  a  disciple  of  Elijah,  but  he  was  a  very  different 
type  of  man.  By  birth  and  training  he  was  in  closest  touch 
with  the  rulers  and  people  of  Northern  Israel  and  he  enjoyed 
the  confidence  of  both.  Through  him  the  principles  for  which 
Elijah  contended  were  instilled  into  the  mind  of  the  masses 
and  found  a  certain  response  among  the  members  of  the  ruling 
class.  The  evils  of  Ahab's  policy  also  became  chiefly  apparent 
during  the  reign  of  his  sons  Ahaziah  and  Joram.  The  immoral 
effects  of  Baalism  offended  the  sense  of  the  better-minded 
citizens,  and  the  strong  militarism  which  had  commended  Ahab's 
policy  to  his  subjects  began  to  crumble.  Also  the  popular 
resentment  at  the  tyranny,  of  which  the  story  of  Naboth  was 
a  glaring  illustration,  continued  to  smolder  and  was  ready 
to  burst  into  a  flame  at  any  moment.  That  moment  came 
when  Elisha  sent  one  of  the  young  sons  of  the  prophets  to 


124  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

the  captain  Jehu,  who,  in  the  absence  of  the  wounded  King 
Joram,  was  commanding  the  Hebrew  forces  in  the  war  against 
the  Arameans,  with  the  significant  message:  "Thus  saith 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  'I  have  anointed  thee  king  over 
Jehovah's  people  Israel/ '  The  fierce,  intemperate  reaction 
against  the  wrong,  repressive  policy  of  Ahab  cost  the  blood 
of  the  reigning  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  and  of  the  chief  men 
of  the  nation.  It  fatally  weakened  the  strength  of  the  northern 
kingdom  and  undoubtedly  hastened  its  downfall.  Jehu,  early 
in  his  reign,  paid  tribute  to  Assyria;  and  under  his  successors 
Northern  Israel  was  humbled  in  the  dust  before  its  old  foes, 
the  Arameans.  Baalism  was  banished  by  force  from  the  land, 
but  its  baneful  influence  remained,  as  Amos  and  others  plainly 
testify.  The  events  of  the  next  half-century  abundantly 
demonstrated  the  utter  futility  of  a  policy  like  that  of  Ahab's, 
which  sacrificed  morals  and  religion  to  material  and  immediate 
ends.  In  seeking  a  brilliant,  material  success  Ahab  lost  not 
only  his  own  life  but  also  that  of  his  nation. 

What  characters  in  modern  history  are  similar  to  that  of 
Ahab?  If  he  had  had  a  different  type  of  wife,  would  his  reign 
have  been  more  successful?  In  what  ways  did  Jezebel  handicap 
him?  Are  any  excuses  to  be  made  for  Jezebel?  Could  she 
have  been  expected  to  act  otherwise  under  the  circumstances 
of  her  birth  and  training?  Do  you  approve  of  Naboth's 
spirit?  Compare  the  character  and  methods  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha?  Is  a  religious  revolution  carried  through  by  the 
sword  ever  permanently  successful  or  beneficial?  Why  not? 
Illustrate. 

V. 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  THE  CITIZEN  TODAY. 

Elijah,  in  his  championship  of  the  Israelites  against  what 
was  felt  to  be  the  tyranny  of  Ahab,  was  standing  for  the  rights 
of  the  individual  as  they  were  interpreted  by  him  and  by  the 
more  democratic  leaders.  They  were  asking  for  the  rights 
of  the  people  as  they  understood  that  these  rights  had  come 
down  to  them  from  their  ancestors;  and  in  fact,  the  right  of 
personal  possession  of  land  and  the  privilege  of  retaining  that 
land  in  a  family,  was  an  established  custom  which  most  people 
did  not  willingly  set  aside. 


The  Rights  of  Citizenship  125 

The  rights  of  the  citizen  today  in  the  United  States  and 
in  most  states  where  there  is  a  constitutional  government, 
are  definitely  determined,  sometimes,  in  the  first  instance, 
by  the  court  declaring  what  the  old-time  custom  has  been, 
usually  in  a  written  constitution  of  which  the  courts  merely 
interpret  the  constitutional  wording.  The  constitution  is 
thus  framed  in  order  to  protect  the  people  against  any  wilful 
act  of  oppression  on  the  part  of  their  government,  whether 
the  government  be  that  of  a  king  or  of  an  elected  president. 
Of  course,  in  modern  days  we  have  gone  in  certain  directions 
far  beyond  what  was  even  thought  of  in  the  days  of  Ahab. 
In  the  United  States  the  Congress  is  forbidden  to  make  any  law 
respecting  the  establishment  of  religion,  or  abridging  the  freedom 
of  speech  or  of  the  press,  or  to  prevent  the  people  from  as- 
sembling peaceably,  or  from  petitioning  the  government 
for  redress  of  grievances.  Of  course,  in  the  days  of  Ahab 
many  of  these  questions  would  not  have  arisen,  but  all  of  these 
rights  probably  were  understood  before  Solomon's  day,  so 
far  as  the  conditions  themselves  existed.  Many  people  did 
worship  Baal  instead  of  Jehovah;  the  people  did  assemble  and 
petition  their  ruler. 

Among  us  no  soldiers  shall  be  quartered  in  any  house  in  time 
of  peace  without  the  consent  of  the  owner.  In  the  days  of 
Ahab,  every  man  was  likely  to  be  called  to  be  a  soldier  and 
the  occasion  for  a  restriction  of  this  kind  probably  did  not  exist. 

The  right  of  the  people  to  be  "secure  in  their  persons,  houses, 
papers  and  effects  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures," 
of  course,  looks  to  a  type  of  civilization  such  as  in  Ahab's 
day  had  not  been  attained.  So  it  is  with  the  rights  of  trial  by 
jury,  of  a  formal  defense  in  case  of  a  criminal  charge,  and  others. 
The  ancient  Hebrews  had  apparently  the  rights  of  democratic 
self-government  developed  to  a  degree  far  beyond  that  of 
any  other  people  of  their  time.  Their  constitution  was  based 
largely  on  custom,  and  was  supported  by  the  power  that  the 
multitude  wielded,  because  of  the  fear  that  a  revolution  might 
be  incited  by  harsh  treatment.  Although  we  have  gone  much 
farther  at  the  present  day  with  reference  to  the  details  in 
which  we  restrain  our  government,  the  spirit  of  democracy 
was  fully  in  the  minds  and  often  in  the  practice  of  the 
Hebrew  people.  It  had  not  been  so  far  forgotten  that  the 
people  did  not  believe  that  they  had  a  right  to  call  Solomon's 


126  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

successor  to  account  even  though  they  had  not  ventured  to 
attempt  to  impose  their* will  upon  King  Solomon  himself. 

The  Constitution  is  our  fundamental  law.  Is  an  ordinary 
untrained  voter  better  able  to  vote  upon  its  adoption  or  upon 
the  passage  of  a  tax  law?  Which  is  the  more  important? 
How  far  are  our  laws  merely  the  formulation  in  written  forms 
of  old-time  customs?  Are  laws  that  originate  in  this  way 
the  more  important  or  less  important?  Are  marriage  laws 
of  this  type?  The  laws  of  contract?  Criminal  laws? 

\ 
VI. 

How  THE  CITIZENS'  RIGHTS  CAN  BE  PROTECTED. 

In  the  United  States  today  if  a  citizen  feels  that  his  rights 
have  been  abused  by  a  fellow-citizen  or  even  by  any  adminis- 
trative officer,  he  appeals  to  the  courts  for  redress  and  the 
courts  in  their  interpretation  of  the  law  quite  generally  are 
inclined  to  interpret  against  the  government  the  laws  that 
protect  the  citizens. 

In  case  there  seems  to  be  a  need  of  adding  to  the  protection 
of  the  citizen  against  his  government,  or  if,  owing  to  changing 
conditions,  any  modification  of  these  rights  is  required,  pro- 
vision is  regularly  made  to  amend  our  constitution,  or  through 
a  constitutional  convention  to  rewrite  the  constitution  as  a 
whole;  but  the  most  fundamental  rights  are  supposed  to  have 
always  the  formal  protection  of  the  constitution  and  to  be  en- 
forced by  the  courts. 

As  society  becomes  more  complex,  controversy  is  likely  to 
become  common  between  those  who  think  that  the  power 
of  the  government  should  be  restricted  to  as  great  a  degree  as 
possible  and  those  whose  inclinations  favor  an  extension  of 
governmental  power.  On  the  one  hand  we  find  the  Socialists, 
who  think  the  government  of  their  so-called  Co-operative 
Commonwealth  should  take  upon  itself  more  and  more  the 
functions  now  performed  by  private  establishments  until 
all  productive  capital  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  the  government 
which  shall  then  direct  the  individuals  in  their  efforts  to  pro- 
duce more  wealth.  At  the  other  extreme  we  find  the  "  scientific 
anarchists,"  who  teach  that  there  should  be  no  government 
at  all,  but  that  affairs  of  common  interest  should  be  conducted 


The  Rights  of  Citizenship  127 

by  voluntary  associations  made  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  the 
time.  From  what  has  already  been  said  it  seems  clear  that 
neither  of  these  extremes  is  practical  at  the  present  stage 
of  civilization  in  either  America  or  Europe.  The  majority 
hold  that  the  rights  of  property  of  the  individual  citizen  should 
in  the  main  be  protected  by  leaving  in  the  hands  of  private 
individuals  most  business- undertakings  and  placing  the  burden 
of  proof  upon  the  government  whenever  it  asserts  the  right 
or  advocates  the  policy  of  taking  upon  itself  more  of  the  duties 
that  have  been  generally  ..  left  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 
Provision  must,  however,  be  made  for  change,  because  with 
the  changing  civilizations  change  in  the  relationships  between 
government  and  citizen  are  bound  to  come.  These  changes 
may  be  by  war,  through  revolution,  or  peacefully  by  consti- 
tutional amendment.  The  rights  of  the  citizens  are  probably 
better  conserved  through  courts  on  minor  matters,  through 
constitutional  conventions  and  amendments  with  the  referendum 
to  the  people  on  matters  that  are  less  complex,  but  that,  never- 
theless, are  of  the  most  vital  import  and  that  normally  belong 
in  a  constitution. 

The  constitution  of  Oklahoma  is  many  times  longer  than 
that  of  the  United  States.  Why? 

Is  government  work  usually  carried  on  more  or  less  efficiently 
than  private  work?  More  or  less  expensively?  Why?  Why 
did  Colonel  Goethals  succeed  in  building  the  Panama  Canal 
when  private  contractors  had  failed? 

If  our  post  office  carries  parcels  long  distances  for  less  than 
cost,  who  pays  the  difference?  Can  a  government  be  better 
or  more  intelligent  than  the  men  of  whom  it  is  composed? 
Why  do  our  newspapers  give  more  space  to  the  utterances  of 
President  Wilson  than  they  did  to  those  of  Professor  Wilson? 
Are  the  sayings  abler,  or  wiser?  How  can  the  people  of  the 
United  States  protect  themselves  against  the  foolishness  or 
the  wrong-doing  of  a  President? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  The  Hebrew  Theory  regarding  the  Rights  of  Property.     Kent, 
Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  pp.  70-74. 

(2)  Investigate  in  your  own  State  the  legal  restrictions  upon  (a)  free- 
dom of  speech  in  public,  (6)  freedom  of  public  assemblage,  (c)  freedom 
of  publication  of  facts  or  opinions.     How  far  are  these  restrictions  in- 
tended to  protect  individuals?     How  far  to  protect  the  public?     See 
Statutes  of  the  State  under  "Slander,  Libel,  Police  Power,  Assemblage." 


128  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

CHAPTER  XI. 

SACRIFICING  PERSONAL  INTERESTS  TO  PUBLIC 
INTERESTS. 

MICAIAH'S  REPLY  TO  AHAB.  —  I  Kgs.  22. 

Parallel  Readings. 

Kent,  Historical  Bible,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  30-32,  36-38. 
Croly,  Chaps.  XI,  XII;  Lowell,  Chaps.  XVII,  XVIII. 

And  Micaiah  said,  Therefore  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah:  I  saw  Jehovah 
sitting  on  his  throne  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his 
right  hand  and  on  his  left.  And  Jehovah  said,  Who  shall  delude  Ahab 
so  that  he  will  go  up  and  fall  at  Ramoth  in  Gilead?  And  one  proposed 
one  thing  and  another  another,  until  there  came  forth  a  spirit  and  stood 
before  Jehovah  and  said,  I  will  delude  him.  And  Jehovah  said  to  him 
By  what  means?  And  he  said,  I  will  go  forth  and  become  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  Thereupon  Jehovah  said,  Thou 
shalt  delude  him  and  shalt  succeed  also!  Go  forth  and  do  so.  So  behold, 
Jehovah  hath  now  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  your  prophets, 
since  Jehovah  hath  determined  to  bring  evil  upon  you.  —  /  Kings  22:  19-23. 

Who,  born  for  the  universe,  narrowed  his  mind, 

And  to  party  gave  up  what  was  meant  for  mankind.  —  Goldsmith. 

I  do  love 

My  country's  good,  with  a  respect  more  tender, 
More  holy,  and  profound,  than  mine  own  life.  —  Shakespeare. 

Dulce  et  decorum  est  pro  patria  mori.  —  Horace. 


I. 

THE  FOUR  HUNDRED  FALSE  PROPHETS. 

A  significant  but  often  overlooked  story  comes  from  the 
closing  year  of  Ahab's  reign.  It  illustrates  perhaps  better 
than  anything  else  the  inevitable  effects  of  his  calculating, 
self-centered  policy.  At  last  he  had  temporarily  healed  the 
breach  between  the  two  Hebrew  kingdoms  and  had  persuaded 
Jehoshaphat  the  Judean  king  to  unite  with  him  in  a  campaign 
against  the  common  foe,  the  Arameans.  It  was  no  longer  a 
war  of  defense  but  one  of  aggression.  This  fact  evidently  raised 
some  doubt  in  the  minds  of  both  kings,  for  they  were  eager 
to  have  the  divine  assurance  that  they  would  be  victorious. 
Accordingly  the  official  prophets  of  Northern  Israel  were 
summoned,  four  hundred  in  number.  It  is  evident  that  they 


Sacrificing  Personal  Interests  to  Public  Interests         129 

were  the  product  of  Ahab's  despotism.  His  campaign  of 
persecution  against  the  sons  of  the  prophets  had  apparently 
resulted  entirely  to  his  satisfaction:  these  men  of  conviction 
and  courage  were  either  all  slain,  or  hunted  from  the  land, 
or  silenced.  The  four  hundred  official  prophets  were  but  tools 
of  the  king.  Jehoshaphat  must  have  had  some  experience 
with  official  prophets  or  else  was  aware  of  the  unnatural  condi- 
tions in  Ahab's  court,  for  when,  in  response  to  the  question, 
"Shall  I  go  up  to  fight  against  Ramoth  in  Gilead  or  forbear?" 
they  all  replied  in  chorus,  "Go  up;  for  Jehovah  will  deliver 
it  into  the  hand  of  the  king,"  he  became  suspicious.  Their 
fawning  spirit  must  also  have  put  him  on  his  guard.  His 
question  reveals  the  thought  in  his  mind,  "Is  there  no  other 
prophet  of  Jehovah,  that  we  may  inquire  of  him?"  It  was 
almost  equivalent  to  saying,  "Produce  a  real  prophet,  if  you 
have-  one  left  in  your  kingdom.  These  sleek,  mercenary 
prophets  are  but  puppets."  The  situation  well  illustrates 
the  perils  of  prosperity  and  of  a  too  close  union  between  church 
and  state.  These  four  hundred  prophets  fitted  in  well  with 
Ahab's  policy.  They  placated  the  people  and  took  the  place 
of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  who  had  been  slain  or  banished, 
and  they  could  be  depended  upon  to  say  what  he  wanted. 
If  Jehoshaphat  had  not  been  so  impolitely  persistent  they 
would  have  carried  Ahab  very  comfortably  through  a  trying 
crisis;  but  at  the  same  time  they  were  unwittingly  luring  him 
on  to  his  death.  It  was  this  type  of  prophet  that  ultimately 
undermined  the  influence  of  the  true  prophets  and  by  their 
lying  messages  and  misleading  counsels  hastened  the  destruc- 
tion of  both  Hebrew  kingdoms. 

In  your  opinion  were  all  of  the  four  hundred  official  prophets 
in  Ahab's  court  deliberate  deceivers  or  were  some  of  them 
probably  self-deceived?  What  reason  had  they  to  think  that 
the  coming  battle  would  result  favorably  for  Ahab?  Is  the 
temptation  for  the  preachers  of  today  to  speak  as  their  audiences 
want  them  to  speak  as  strong  as  in  the  days  of  Ahab?  What 
forms  does  the  temptation  take?  Has  Churchill  truly  por- 
trayed it  in  his  novel,  "  The  Inside  of  the  Cup  "?  Are  the  effects 
of  yielding  to  this  temptation  as  disastrous  today  as  in  earlier 
days? 


130  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

II. 
THE  MAN  WHO  DARED  TELL  THE  TRUTH. 

Jehosbaphat's  question  was  exceedingly  trying  to  Ahab. 
Reluctantly  he  confessed  that  he  knew  of  another  prophet 
who  was  able  to  speak  with  recognized  authority,  but  that  he 
hated  him,  as  he  did  Elijah,  because  he  had  prophesied  for 
the  king  only  evil.  Micaiah,  the  son  of  Imlah,  was  one  of  the 
two  prophets  in  Israel  who  were  trying  to  save  the  king  and 
nation  from  ultimate  calamity,  for  they  alone  dared  point 
out  the  evil  consequences  of  Ahab's  policy. 

While  the  messenger  was  going  to  summon  Micaiah,  the 
four  hundred  official  prophets  endeavored  by  means  of  dramatic 
actions  to  convince  the  sceptical  Jehoshaphat  of  the  truth 
of  their  prediction.  It  is  a  striking  scene.  The  two  kings 
of  Judah  and  Israel  are  seated  on  their  thrones  in  all  the  para- 
phernalia of  their  royal  office.  Lined  up  before  them  are  the 
four  hundred  prophets  of  Israel,  probably  clad  in  their  garb 
of  office.  Suddenly  Zedekiah,  their  spokesman,  stepped 
forth  before  the  king  wearing  horns  of  iron,  and  turning  to 
Ahab,  declared:  "With  these  thou  shalt  push  the  Arameans 
until  thou  hast  destroyed  them!"  Such  an  elaborate  sym- 
bolism suggests  that  it  had  been  prepared  in  advance,  possibly 
at  Ahab's  command,  to  make  more  impressive  the  already 
discredited  authority  of  the  mercenary  four  hundred,  who 
in  chorus  confirmed  Zedekiah's  prediction. 

Into  this  presence  came  the  unpopular  Micaiah.  The  royal 
messenger  who  had  summoned  him  had  voiced  the  spirit  of 
Ahab's  court:  "The  prophets  have  with  one  consent  promised 
good  fortune  for  the  king;  therefore  speak  the  same  as  they 
all  do  and  prophesy  good  fortune."  Micaiah  recognized  it 
as  both  a  bribe  and  threat,  but  it  could  not  swerve  him  from 
his  allegiance  to  a  higher  King.  "As  Jehovah  liveth,  I  will 
speak  whatever  Jehovah  saith  to  me." 

If  ever  a  man  felt  himself  in  a  hopeless  minority,  it  was 
Micaiah,  when  he  was  ushered  into  the  presence  of  Ahab  and 
Jehoshaphat.  He  well  knew  the  feelings  and  temper  of  his 
royal  master.  His  life  was  in  imminent  peril.  He  was  already 
the  most  unpopular  man  in  the  court.  If  Ahab  had  come 
back  successful  from  battle,  contrary  to  Micaiah's  prediction, 
his  reputation  as  a  prophet  would  have  been  ruined;  and  yet 


Sacrificing  Personal  Interests  to  Public  Interests         131 

he  even  dared  mock  the  king  by  echoing,  in  a  tone  that  Ahab 
at  once  recognized  as  irony,  the  oracle  of  the  four  hundred. 
The  king's  reply  indicates  that  this  was  not  the  first  time  that 
he  had  ridiculed  Ahab's  attempt  to  bring  under  his  despotic 
control  even  the  oracles  of  the  Deity  himself.  A  certain 
caustic  humor,  as  well  as  dramatic  power  of  presentation, 
characterizes  all  that  is  related  of  this  otherwise  unknown 
prophet.  His  figure  of  "all  Israel  scattered  on  the  mountains 
as  sheep  that  have  no  shepherd"  was  well  calculated  to  arouse 
Ahab  to  an  appreciation  of  his  high  responsibility  and  of 
the  woes  that  he  was  in  imminent  danger  of  bringing  upon  his 
helpless  subjects.  Micaiah  would  have  been  a  good  counsellor 
for  many  a  modern  ruler.  Then  to  make  his  lesson  doubly 
impressive  and  to  rebuke  the  mercenary  four  hundred  prophets, 
Micaiah  recounted  a  vision.  Instead  of  Ahab  seated  on  his 
throne  he  seemed  to  see  Jehovah  the  divine  King  sitting  in 
state  with  all  the  heavenly  host  about  him.  The  question 
raised  by  Jehovah  is:  "Who  shall  delude  Ahab  so  that  he  will 
go  up  and  fail  at  Ramoth  in  Gilead?"  The  implication  is 
that  Ahab  is  condemned;  all  that  remains  to  be  decided  is  a 
fitting  way  in  which  to  carry  out  the  sentence.  Some  of  the 
divine  attendants  suggested  one  thing;  others  another,  until 
at  last  one  stands  forth  and  asks  that  he  be  sent  as  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  of  Ahab's  prophets.  So  perfectly 
did  this  punishment  fit  the  crimes  of  Ahab  that  it  at  once 
received  the  divine  approval.  Accordingly  the  lying  spirit 
was  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  four  hundred  prophets  with  the 
result  already  noted.  Micaiah's  courage,  insight,  and  skill 
are  all  equally  impressive.  Underlying  his  bold,  yet  gently 
humorous,  condemnation  of  Ahab's  tools,  is  the  prophet's 
deep  moral  conviction  that  the  king's  policy  cannot  possibly 
receive  Jehovah's  approval.  This  conviction  in  Micaiah's 
mind  must  have  been  rendered  doubly  sure  by  the  fact  that 
the  proposed  war  was  simply  prompted  by  the  king's  selfish 
ambitions.  It  meant  in  any  case  the  sacrifice  of  innocent 
lives  and  jeopardized  the  future  of  the  nation,  for  notwith- 
standing all  his  faults,  Ahab  was  the  best  military  commander 
Northern  Israel  ever  had,  and  his  death  would  mean  that  his 
people  would  indeed  be  left  "as  sheep  without  a  shepherd." 
Do  you  think  that  Micaiah  had  an  absolute  vision  of  the 
future  or  was  his  vision  a  graphic,  concrete  method  of  present- 


132  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

ing  his  clear  conviction  that  Ahab's  motives  and  plan  of  war 
were  wrong  and  that  they  would  not  be  blest  by  a  God  of 
justice?  Give  your  reasons.  Is  the  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth 
of  the  false  prophets  the  first  appearance  in  Hebrew  literature 
of  the  popular  belief  in  Satan?  Compare  this  portrait  here 
with  that  in  Job  1,  2.  Did  Micaiah  wish  to  vindicate  the  four 
hundred  prophets? 

Do  you  think  that  the  advisers  of  any  of  the  rulers  before 
the  outbreak  of  the  great  modern  war  gave  the  advice  they 
thought  was  desired  instead  of  the  soundest  advice?  What 
ones? 

Are  such  acts  common  today  even  in  the  case  of  holders 
of  small  offices  or  of  business  men?  Have  you  met  any  case 
in  your  own  experience? 

III. 

THE  FATE  OF  A  RULER  WHO  REFUSED  TO  HEED 
GOOD  COUNSEL. 

Ahab  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  superlative  folly  of 
trying  to  elude  the  consequences  of  one's  own  crimes.  He 
must  have  recognized  the  absolute  truth  of  Micaiah's  con- 
tention, for  he  had  a  conscience  and  the  figurative  language 
in  which  it  was  presented  did  not  conceal  but  rather  made 
the  more  impressive  its  sinister  warning.  The  false  prophets 
also  felt  keenly  the  stinging  rebuke.  Zedekiah  showed  his 
anger  and  resentment  by  striking  Micaiah  in  the  face,  but 
that  intrepid  prophet  remained  calm  in  the  serene  confidence 
that  he  was  true  to  the  eternal  principles  of  which  Jehovah 
was  the  source  and  embodiment.  He  appealed  to  the  future 
for  the  vindication  of  his  prediction.  The  exact  prediction 
which  he  uttered  concerning  Zedekiah  may  never  have  been 
fulfilled,  but  its  declaration  that  disaster  awaited  the  nation 
Israel  proved  all  too  true. 

Ahab's  rage  was  expressed  in  the  command  to  put  Micaiah 
into  prison  and  to  feed  him  on  scanty  fare  until  the  falsity 
of  his  prediction  should  be  demonstrated.  It  was  the  only 
reply  that  a  determined  despot  could  make  to  the  voice  of 
conscience  and  of  truth.  Micaiah  met  his  unjust  fate  with 
the  confidence  of  a  man  intent  on  higher  issues  than  the  mis- 
fortunes of  a  moment.  Thus  Ahab  entered  the  battle  with 
Arameans  handicapped  by  a  guilty  conscience  and  deadly 


Sacrificing  Personal  Interests  to  Public  Interests         133 

fear  that  led  him  to  assume  a  disguise.  To  Jehoshaphat  he 
showed  the  very  doubtful  hospitality  of  putting  on  him  his 
royal  robes,  an  act  which  nearly  cost  Jehoshaphat  his  life, 
for  the  Aramean  king  had  given  orders  that  Ahab  must  be 
captured  at  any  cost. 

The  knowledge  of  Micaiah's  ominous  prediction  and  of 
Ahab's  infamous  treatment  of  a  faithful  prophet  of  Jehovah 
must  have  been  widely  known  throughout  the  ranks  of  the 
Hebrews,  so  that  they  entered  the  battle  with  fear  in  their  hearts 
and  already  half  defeated.  Ahab's  disguise  must  also  have 
greatly  disconcerted  them,  for  the  chief  force  holding  them  in 
line  was  the  presence  and  personal  power  of  their  masterful  king. 
Ahab  himself  was  well  aware  of  this  fact,  for  when  an  arrow 
pierced  his  coat  of  mail  and  mortally  wounded  him,  he  held 
to  his  post  until  at  the  close  of  the  day  he  died  in  his  chariot. 
The  picture  of  the  dying  king,  propped  up  in  his  chariot  and 
by  sheer  will  power  holding  his  place  in  the  ranks  of  his  fol- 
lowers is  both  inspiring  and  pathetic.  One  would  like  to 
know  what  were  his  thoughts  on  that  tragic  day,  as  he  felt  his 
life-blood  departing  and  the  tide  of  war  turning  against  him. 
Was  it  Micaiah's  vision  of  "all  Israel  scattered  on  the  moun- 
tains as  sheep  without  a  shepherd"  that  held  him  to  his  post 
and  kept  his  feeble  heart  beating?  Did  memories  of  the  many 
times  that  he  had  refused  to  heed  the  voice  of  his  faithful 
prophets  and  of  his  own  conscience  come  back  to  him  in  the 
midst  of  that  tragic  battle?  Like  many  a  masterful,  energetic 
man  before  and  after  him,  he  had  felt  himself  strong  enough 
to  defy  God  and  his  people  and  too  late  learned  the  utter 
futility  of  the  attempt.  Back  to  his  capital  Samaria  his 
fleeing  followers  carried  the  body  of  the  king,  and  next  day, 
as  his  servants  washed  his  blood  from  his  chariot  and  the 
dogs  licked  his  blood,  every  thoughtful  man  in  Israel  recalled 
not  Ahab's  earlier  victories  but  the  stern  prediction  of  Elijah 
and  the  innocent  blood  of  Naboth,  poured  out  at  Jezreel 
through  the  cupidity  and  treachery  of  the  most  gifted  but 
morally  one  of  the  weakest  of  the  kings  of  Northern  Israel. 

Prepare  a  sketch  of  Ahab's  character,  noting  his  elements 
of  strength  and  weakness.  Did  he  genuinely  love  his  subjects? 
Is  war  ever  justifiable  except  for  defense?  If  so,  cite  illus- 
trations. Which  is  the  greater  prophet,  Elijah  or  Micaiah? 
Why? 


134  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

IV. 

THE  FUNCTION  OP  MINORITIES. 

In  these  days  of  popular  self-government,  we  are  in  the 
habit  of  speaking  of  the  rule  of  majorities  and  of  the  rights 
of  minorities  that  need  to  be  protected,  but  we  comparatively 
seldom  think  of  the  very  useful  function  that  minorities  regu- 
larly perform.  Men  are  so  constituted  that,  unless  there  is 
some  way  of  compelling  them  to  act  thoughtfully  after  due 
consideration,  they  are  likely  to  act  hastily  and  carelessly, 
often  hi  the  long  run  to  their  own  injury. 

In  our  representative  governments  it  is  natural  and  wise 
that  conflicting  interests  and  conflicting  opinions  should  find 
due  representation.  In  our  legislative  bodies  in  consequence 
we  shall  always  have  on  every  question  of  importance  majorities 
and  minorities.  A  vote  is  taken  in  any  republic,  if  we  are  to 
follow  the  suggestion  of  Rousseau,  not  primarily  for  the  purpose 
of  putting  into  effect  a  specific  opinion,  but  rather  to  find 
out  what  the  majority  thinks,  our  first  interest  being  that  the 
will  of  the  majority  shall  rule.  In  consequence,  a  member 
of  the  minority  ought  not  to  feel  that  he  is  wronged  or  that 
his  will  is  not  being  carried  out,  if,  as  an  advocate,  let  us  say, 
of  free  trade,  he  finds  a  protective  system  put  into  effect. 
What  he  cares  most  about  is  that  the  majority  shall  rule. 
If  the  majority  believes  in  protection,  he,  therefore,  wants 
the  state  to  have  protection,  until  he  and  his  party  can  con- 
vince a  majority  that  that  system  is  wrong.  The  function 
of  the  minority,  therefore,  is  to  criticize  the  majority,  to  argue 
with  the  majority,  to  put  forward  its  own  views  so  unceasingly 
and  so  effectively  that  it  will  eventually  become  a  majority 
and  then  it  will  pass  its  favorite  measures,  after  they  in  turn 
have  been  duly  criticized  and  opposed  by  the  minority  that 
follows.  In  this  way  the  government  is  kept  stable  and 
secure,  and  progress,  while  possibly  not  always  rapid,  is  steady 
and  sure.  The  importance  of  criticism  must  not  be  overlooked 
in  any  state,  or  for  that  matter  in  any  act  of  importance  in 
private  as  well  as  in  public  life,  and  such  criticism  should  not 
arouse  bitterness,  but  should  merely  impose  upon  those  who 
are  criticized  the  duty  of  self-examination  and  of  the  needed 
readjustment  of  views  and  of  acts. 

Is  it  desirable  that  a  system  of  proportional  representation 


Sacrificing  Personal  Interests  to  Public  Interests         135 

be  adopted,  so  that  even  a  small  minority,  say  twenty  per  cent 
or  ten  per  cent,  of  the  voters  may  still  have  an  official  repre- 
sentative to  voice  their  opinion?  In  such  a  case  would  there 
be  danger  of  too  many  small  parties?  Is  it  always  desirable 
that  one  single  party  have  a  majority,  so  that  the  voters  may 
hold  it  responsible  for  the  acts  of  government?  Would  not 
or  would  a  coalition  of  small  parties  on  each  important  measure 
answer  the  same  purpose? 

V. 

THE  SEEMING  CONFLICT  OP  PERSONAL  AND  PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 

Most  men  feel  that  it  is  contrary  to  their  immediate  interest 
to  pay  heavy  taxes,  but  they  recognize  that  it  is  in  the  public 
interest  that  government  be  established  and  upheld,  and  they 
are,  therefore,  willing  to  make  the  sacrifice  of  their  personal 
interest  for  the  sake  of  promoting  that  of  the  public.  Men 
of  training  and  ability  are  frequently  asked  to  accept  public 
office  in  order  that  they  may  put  their  capabilities  and  ex- 
perience at  the  service  of  the  public.  In  many  instances  the 
acceptance  of  such  an  office  means  a  decided  sacrifice  of  certain 
types  of  personal  interest.  Not  many  years  since  a  man 
accepted  a  position  in  the  United  States  cabinet  at  a  salary 
of  $12,000  a  year,  when  such  acceptance  was  said  to  involve 
the  sacrifice  of  a  personal  income  of  $100,000  a  year  or  upwards. 
A  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  some  years  ago  resigned 
his  position  because,  as  he  said,  he  felt  it  incumbent  upon  him 
to  make  proper  financial  provision  for  the  support  and  educa- 
tion of  his  family  and  for  his  own  needs  in  future  years.  He 
had  long  served  the  public  as  an  official  as  efficiently  as  he 
could,  and  the  public  agreed  that  his  services  had  been  most 
useful;  but  he  felt  that  the  time  had  come  for  him  to  place 
first  emphasis,  for  the  time  being  at  any  rate,  upon  his  personal 
affairs.  This  seeming  conflict  is  one  that  frequently  arises. 
Usually,  if  one  takes  the  look  far  ahead  and  has  his  real  interest 
in  the  final  terms  of  service,  there  will  be  found  to  be  no  con- 
flict. If  a  citizen  cares  for  his  character  and  his  self-respect, 
he  may  much  more  easily  afford  to  pay  high  taxes  than  to 
attempt  to  shirk  his  proper  share  of  the  public  burdens.  A 
man  may  sacrifice  a  fortune,  as  many  have  sacrificed  fortunes, 


136  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

by  devoting  his  life  to  the  public  service,  but  the  approval 
of  his  fellow-citizens  and,  what  is  of  more  importance,  the 
approval  of  his  conscience  for  a  life  spent  in  the  performance  of 
duty  ought  surely  to  be  ample  compensation  for  the  loss  of 
wealth.  We  know  that  it  is  practically  a  universal  experience 
that  men  who  fall  on  the  field  of  battle,  when  fighting  for  a  cause 
they  believe  to  be  just,  do  not  regret  the  sacrifice,  but  cheer- 
fully, gladly  even,  sacrifice  life  itself  for  their  country  and 
the  duty  imposed  upon  them  by  patriotism.  Can  any  one 
believe  that  they  have  lost  by  sacrificing  all  that  they  have 
for  the  public  good? 

Give  illustrations  within  your  own  knowledge  of  persons 
who  have  sacrificed  private  gain  for  the  public  good  with  no 
expectation  of  reward.  Give  illustrations  of  those  who  have 
sacrificed  the  public  good  for  private  gain.  Judging  all  the 
above  cases  in  the  light  of  the  reputation  of  all  the  persons 
mentioned  among  their  neighbors,  and  in  the  scale  of  your 
conscience,  would  you  gain  most  in  the  long  run  in  the  first 
or  the  second  class? 

VI. 

WAYS  IN  WHICH  MEN  MAY  EFFECTIVELY  SERVE  THEIR 
STATE  AND  NATION. 

Many  of  the  discussions  regarding  the  duties  of  the  citizen 
lay  chief  emphasis  upon  office  holding  and  the  furtherance  of 
the  public  welfare  through  law  making  and  law  enforcement. 
It  is  too  often  forgotten  that  the  unofficial  citizen  in  many 
cases  may  accomplish  for  his  city  and  state  as  much  as  can 
any  public  official.  When  in  the  early  sixties,  Professor 
Virchow  of  the  University  of  Berlin  noted  the  very  high 
death  rate  of  that  city  and  believed  that  this  death  rate  might 
be  greatly  lowered  through  the  installation  of  a  proper  water 
supply  and  drainage  system,  his  scientific  studies  were  probably 
of  no  less  service  to  his  city  than  the  official  service  which  he 
performed  when  he  went  into  the  City  Council,  afterward 
to  become  a  member  of  the  Prussian  Landtag  and  of  the 
Imperial  Reichstag.  In  these  official  positions  he  was  able 
to  assist  in  putting  into  effect  remedial  measures  that  promoted 
the  health  of  his  fellow-citizens.  That  was  a  work,  however, 
that  might  have  been  accomplished  by  many  more  men  than 


Sacrificing  Personal  Interests  to  Public  Interests         137 

could  have  performed  the  scientific  investigations  upon  which 
these  great  services  rested.  Few  people  will  question  the 
service  to  their  countries  that  men  like  Edison  and  Gray  and 
Carrel  and  Pasteur  and  Helmholtz  and  numerous  other  scientific 
men  have  rendered,  even  when  those  services  are  put  into 
direct  comparison  hi  value  with  those  of  infportant  members 
of  the  government  of  the  leading  states  or  of  the  greatest  generals 
in  warfare. 

But  aside  from  the  public  effect  of  these  personal  services 
along  scientific  lines,  there  are  other  services  directly  political 
in  nature  that  may  be  performed  without  securing  or  holding 
public  office.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the  legislation  of 
the  present  day  deals  with  economic  and  social  questions. 
It  frequently  happens  that  a  man  who  is  thoroughly  trained 
in  business  or  in  the  commercial  sciences,  by  virtue  of  his 
investigations,  his  scientific  reputation,  his  standing  as  a 
man  of  good  judgment  and  unprejudiced  views  may  exercise 
even  more  influence  upon  legislation  than  can  a  man  who  is 
himself  either  a  political  leader  or  a  member  of  an  official 
body.  The  prime  consideration,  of  course,  is  that  a  person 
have  the  knowledge  and  then  the  character  that  will  win 
confidence.  If  he  have  the  public  spirit  which  demands  that 
he  put  whatever  he  has  of  ability  or  strength  at  the  service 
of  the  public,  it  makes  little  difference  what  his  field  of  activity 
may  be — he  will  find  ample  opportunity.  It  is  not  many 
years  since,  at  the  time  of  a  great  social  crisis  in  New  York 
City,  large  sums  of  money  were  put  with  full  discretion  into 
the  hands  of  a  woman  of  marked  ability  and  high  character, 
Mrs.  Josephine  Shaw  Lowell,  to  expend  for  the  public  welfare, 
because  it  was  generally  felt  that  there  was  no  public  official 
or  no  other  private  citizen  so  well  equipped  to  render  this 
special  public  service  that  the  situation  demanded.  Similar 
illustrations  are  found  in  the  distribution  of  relief  funds  at  the 
time  of  the  San  Francisco  earthquake  and  fire,  in  the  famines 
in  China  and  India  and  in  numberless  other  instances  that 
might  be  cited.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  feel  that  in  order  to 
render  a  public  service  he  needs  to  seek  or  to  enter  public 
office.  It  is  perhaps  far  more  likely  to  be  the  case  that  he 
can  render  his  public  service  either  by  serving  as  a  conscientious, 
fearless — though  he  should  try  to  be  a  sensible  and  even- 
tempered — critic  of  public  affairs,  or  by  the  direct  rendering 


138  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

of  public  service  through  personal  study  and  personal  devotion 
in  any  field  of  public  activity. 

Is  there  any  adverse  criticism  to  be  made  of  a  conscientious 
man  who  does  seek  public  office?  How  is  one  to  find  a  just  basis 
for  judging  such  a  man?  What  is  the  proper  criterion  for 
judgment?  Ought  a  man  always  to  wait  until  some  one  else 
suggests  him  for  office?  Or  for  a  private  appointment? 
Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  The  False  Prophets  in  Israel's  History.     Compare  the  references 
to  them  in  Micah  3:  3-7,  Jer.  5: 13,  31;  6: 13,  14,  34,  and  Ezek.  22:  25-28; 
Lam.  2 : 14.     Why  were  they  a  deadly  menace  to  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth? 

(2)  If  a  City  Government  in  the  United  States  needs  for  public  purposes 
— say  for  a  park — the  land  of  a  private  individual,  it  may  take  the  land 
through    condemnation   proceedings   by  the   right    of   eminent  domain. 
Examine  this  right  and  the  methods  of  procedure  under  the  laws  of  your 
own  State  and  compare  them  with  Ahab's  methods  of  securing  Naboth's 
vineyard.     Statutes:  "Eminent  Domain;  Condemnation  Proceedings." 


CHAPTER  XII. 

A  NATION'S    DESTINY. 
ISRAEL'S  CONCEPTION  OP  ITS  MISSION. — Deut.  4 — 9. 

Parallel  Readings. 
Croly,  Chap.  XIII;  Lowell,  Chap.  XIX. 

Ye  shall  walk  in  all  the  ways  which  Jehovah  your  God  hath  commanded 
you,  that  ye  may  live,  and  that  it  may  be  well  with  you,  and  that  ye  may 
prolong  your  days  in  the  land  which  ye  shall  possess. — Deut.  6: 33. 

For  thou  art  a  holy  people  to  Jehovah  thy  God.  Jehovah  thy  God 
hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a  special  people  to  himself,  above  all  people  that 
are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. — Deut.  7:  6. 

Know  therefore  that  Jehovah  thy  God,  he  is  God,  the  faithful  God, 
who  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  those  who  love  him  and  keep  his 
commands  to  a  thousand  generations. — Deut.  7: 9. 

Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.— Matt.  5: 13. 

From  the  beginning  the  Land  of  Democracy  has  been  figured  as  the 
Land  of  Promise.  An  America  which  was  not  the  Land  of  Promise, 
which  was  not  informed  by  a  prophetic  outlook  and  a  more  or  less  con- 
structive ideal,  would  not  be  the  America  bequeathed  to  us  by  our  fore- 
fathers.— Croly. 


A  Nation's  Destiny  139 

While  it  is  illuminating  to  see  how  environment  molds  men,  it  is  abso- 
lutely essential  that  men  regard  themselves  as  molders  of  their  environ- 
ment.— Lippmann. 

This  shall  be  thy  work:  to  impose  conditions  of  peace,  to  spare  the 
lowly,  and  to  overthrow  the  proud. — Virgil. 

The  meaning  of  honor  and  of  the  sanctity  of  one's  word,  the  under- 
standing of  the  principles  of  democracy  and  of  the  society  in  which  we 
live,  the  love  of  humanity,  and  the  desire  to  serve — these  are  what  make 
a  good  citizen. — Tarbell. 

We  ought  to  be  no  less  persuaded  that  the  propitious  smiles  of  heaven 
can  never  be  expected  on  a  nation  that  disregards  the  eternal  rules  of 
order  and  right,  which  heaven  itself  has  ordained. — Washington. 

L 

ISRAEL'S  UNFOLDING  NATIONAL  IDEALS. 

It  is  reported  that  Gladstone  in  speaking  regarding  the 
American  Constitution  characterized  it  as  the  greatest  work 
that  had  ever  sprung  at  one  time  from  the  mind  of  man.  If 
the  story  is  true,  the  assumption  seems  to  be  that  great  historic 
documents  come  quickly  into  being  without  previous  prepara- 
tion. Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth.  American 
historians  have  repeatedly  shown  that  scarcely  an  article  or 
section  in  the  American  Constitution  is  new,  but  that  nearly 
every  plan  proposed  had  been  tried  by  some  colony,  and  every 
successful  institution  therein  established  had  already  stood 
the  test  of  experience.  So  it  always  is  in  the  development 
of  nations.  The  early  Hebrew  tribes  established  a  model 
of  democratic  policy  that  has  had  a  prevailing  influence  upon 
human  history  since  that  time,  and  the  experience  of  Israel 
first  proved  that  the  democratic  idea,  which  is  commonly 
found  in  primitive  society,  was  also  adaptable  to  a  powerful 
nation. 

When  the  Hebrews  first  appear  as  a  people,  they  are  merely 
a  band  of  slaves  escaping  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Pharaoh 
in  Egypt,  but  they  are  bound  together  by  the  influence  of  a 
leader  of  pre-eminent  ability  who  knew  how  to  unite  his  tur- 
bulent people  into  one  firm  social  unit  and  to  impress  indelibly 
upon  them  the  ideal  of  freedom,  and  especially  the  idea  of 
dependence  upon  Jehovah.  Through  his  ability  to  unite 
his  people  Moses  created  the  Hebrew  state.  It  consisted 
at  first  of  only  a  small  disorganized  people  wandering  in  the 


140  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

wilderness  with  scarcely  sufficient  resources  to  meet  their 
daily  needs;  but  Moses  gave  them  the  ambition  to  become  a 
united  people  with  an  orderly  government  founded  upon 
righteousness.  Their  experiences  in  the  wilderness  cultivated 
in  each  man  the  spirit  of  independence  and  self-reliance  neces- 
sary to  the  foundation  of  self-government;  but  in  the  early  times 
they  were  so  few  in  number  and  had  a  leader  so  pre-eminent 
in  ability  that  in  all  matters  of  public  policy  they  rested  mainly 
on  his  judgment.  In  their  own  personal  affairs,  however, 
every  family  and  clan  ruled  itself  under  the  direction  of  its 
elders. 

As  the  tribes  came  north  through  the  territory  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  entered  upon  the  conquest  of  Palestine,  the  pres- 
sure of  conflict  against  the  desert  tribes,  together  with  the 
incentives  to  subjugate  the  peoples  of  Canaan,  emphasized 
still  further  these  primitive  tendencies.  To  these  were  added 
the  conception  of  a  strong,  permanent  state  that  would  enable 
the  Hebrews  to  acquire  property  and  to  establish  themselves 
as  permanent  residents  of  a  home  land.  But  it  was  not  until 
later  that  the  pressure  from  the  surrounding  nations  and 
especially  the  attacks  of  the  Philistines  upon  the  different 
tribes  of  Israel  led  them  to  take  steps  to  realize,  as  they  did 
under  Saul,  the  ideal  of  a  nation  united  into  one  people,  great 
enough  to  be  called  a  state  in  the  modern  meaning  of  the 
term. 

After  King  David  overthrew  the  Philistines,  he  rapidly- 
extended  his  conquests  to  the  north  and  east  and  south,  until 
he  ruled  an  empire  instead  of  a  small  kingdom.  His  realm 
extended  from  the  territory  of  Damascus  on  the  north  to  the 
Red  Sea  on  the  south,  from  the  desert  on  the  east  to  the  land 
of  the  Philistines  in  the  plains  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean. 
He  had  under  him  many  subject  peoples,  and  the  conception 
of  a  kingdom,  which  the  Israelites  had  held  before,  grew  into 
the  broader  idea  of  a  great  empire.  The  earlier  belief  in 
Jehovah  as  a  tribal  God  developed  into  the  thought  of  Jehovah 
as  a  God  of  other  gods,  as  a  Lord  of  lords,  although  not  until 
long  after  David's  day  did  the  conception  of  a  one  universal 
God,  supreme  over  all  peoples,  become  prevalent  among  them. 
It  will  be  thus  seen  that  step  by  step  the  nation  developed 
from  the  mere  idea  of  the  family  or  clan  with  its  patriarchal 
head,  as  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  into  that  of  a  great  imperial 


A  Nation's  Destiny  141 

nation,  ruling  over  other  nations,  and  that  as  their  bounds 
were  extended,  their  conception  of  Jehovah's  influence  and 
authority  was  correspondingly  enlarged. 

Did  the  Hebrews  learn  more  in  the  wilderness  from  the 
teachings  of  Moses  or  from  their  struggles  against  hunger 
and  thirst  and  hostile  tribes?  Is  there  anything  in  the  nature 
of  life  in  the  wilderness  that  especially  emphasizes  the  idea 
of  man's  dependence  upon  a  supernatural  power? 

II. 

THE  EFFECTS  OF  GREAT  CRISES  UPON  ISRAEL'S 
DEVELOPMENT. 

Although  the  process  of  development  may  be  slow,  in  the 
history  of  nations  there  may  be  noted  from  time  to  time, 
certain  crises  or  steps  in  development  that  mark  the  beginning 
or  the  end  of  periods  of  national  growth.  Though  the  crises 
seem  to  come  suddenly,  they  are  usually  the  result  of  long 
preparation.  Definite  dates  are  ascribed  for  the  beginning 
of  the  American  and  French  revolutions,  and  yet  hi  both  cases 
it  is  possible  to  trace  through  a  series  of  years  influences 
that  were  steadily  increased  in  strength  until  at  length  they 
suddenly  burst  the  bonds,  and  events  of  international  im- 
portance quickly  took  place.  The  sudden  revolution  in  China 
against  the  Manchu  dynasty  had  been  preparing  for  many 
decades.  The  outburst  came  suddenly  from  apparently  a 
slight,  even  an  inadequate  cause.  So  hi  the  recent  great 
war  that  has  involved  all  Europe  and  a  large  proportion  of 
the  civilized  world,  the  underlying  influences  of  national 
prejudices,  growing  armaments,  aggressive  commercialism, 
the  spirit  of  dominating  militarism,  and  various  suspicions 
were  all  gaining  strength  during  a  long  series  of  years  until 
finally,  at  an  event  that  at  first  seemed  only  a  minor  crisis, 
there  burst  into  flame  in  a  few  hours  a  conflagration  of  war 
that  has  changed  all  of  modern  history.  In  Israel's  history 
we  may  likewise  mark  a  series  of  significant  crises. 

In  the  beginning  the  nation  came  into  being  through  a 
revolution  that  freed  the  Hebrew  slaves  from  the  Egyptians 
and  gave  them  a  chance  to  build  stable  social  institutions. 
At  Sinai,  through  the  insight  of  Moses,  the  covenant  with 
Jehovah  was  promulgated  that  determined  the  trend  of  the 


142  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

nation's  religious  and  political  development  from  that  time 
forward. 

The  great  victory  of  Deborah  over  the  Canaanites  gave  to 
the  Israelites  the  consciousness  of  unity  that  enabled  them 
to  look  forward  to  ultimate  possession  of  a  permanent  home 
in  a  land  that  from  its  agricultural  and  commercial  possibilities 
enabled  them  to  build  a  sound  civilization. 

The  pressure  of  the  Philistines  upon  the  scattered  tribes 
of  the  North  and  South  threatened  their  independent  existence 
and  forced  them  to  accept  Saul  as  the  king  of  a  united  nation. 
This  act  inaugurated  a  memorable  era  which  continued  through 
the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  resulted  in  the  gradual 
development  of  the  people  into  a  great  empire. 

Solomon's  oppression  of  his  people  and  the  burdens  that 
he  laid  upon  them  brought  about  the  next,  and,  in  many 
respects,  the  most  important  political  crisis  in  Israel's  history, 
when  the  tribes  demanded  of  Rehoboam  that  he  relieve  the 
people  from  their  unjust  burdens  and  make  himself  not  the 
tyrant  but  the  servant  of  the  people.  This  crisis,  which  estab- 
lished for  the  Israelites  once  for  all  the  principle  of  individual 
human  rights,  marks  the  political  culmination  of  their  nation's 
destiny.  They  not  only  demanded,  but  they  won  self-govern- 
ment. The  last  important  crisis  in  the  period  under  considera- 
tion came  in  the  days  of  Ahab  and  Elijah.  The  perpetuation 
of  Israel's  faith  in  Jehovah  and  the  political  and  social  and 
moral  ideals  that  had  crystallized  about  that  faith  were  then 
at  issue,  and  in  the  end  the  higher  ideals  triumphed. 

Can  there  be  self-government  under  a  king?  Give  examples. 
Can  there  be  tyranny  under  a  democracy?  Give  examples. 
Which  do  you  consider  the  most  important  crisis  mentioned 
in  this  section?  Why?  Can  you  mention  any  books  the 
publication  of  which  has  marked  crises  in  history?  What 
ones? 

III. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  PKOPHETS. 

It  is  the  fashion  among  a  certain  group  of  modern  writers 
to  say  that  the  fate  of  individuals  is  determined  by  society 
and  that  the  forces  which  control  the  development  of  nations 
and  individuals  alike  are  forces  for  which  they  are  not  respon- 
sible and  which  no  individual  can  control.  The  determining 


A  Nation1  s  Destiny  143 

influence  of  environment  is  not  to  be  underestimated,  but  it 
should  be  noted  that  in  every  movement  there  is  some  individual 
who  starts  it  and  to  a  great  extent,  as  a  result  of  his  personal 
characteristics  and  efforts,  determines  its  direction.  Doubtless 
in  the  American  situation  and  in  the  acts  of  Great  Britain 
there  were  underlying  causes  that  forced  the  American  revolu- 
tion; but  the  influence  of  such  men  as  Samuel  Adams,  Patrick 
Henry,  James  Otis  and  George  Washington  is  likewise  not 
to  be  overlooked. 

The  system  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  doubtless  would 
ultimately  have  been  abolished  as  a  result  of  underlying  eco- 
nomic and  moral  forces.  This  in  no  way  lessens,  however, 
the  emphasis  that  should  be  placed  upon  the  work  and  acts 
of  Webster,  Calhoun,  Lincoln,  Douglas  and  John  Brown. 
So  in  the  Hebrew  history  there  are  a  few  great  men,  the 
prophets,  each  of  whom  rendered  a  service  that  cannot  be 
overlooked;  each  is  the  one  in  whom  we  find  the  immediate 
efficient,  even  perhaps  the  final  cause  of  one  of  the  great  his- 
toric changes.  The  world's  historians  will  ever  look  upon 
Moses  as  the  great  creative  mind  that  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  institutions  that  have  made  the  Hebrews  a  people  of 
tremendous  influence  throughout  all  history.  It  needed  a 
prophet  like  Samuel  to  crystallize  in  his  mind  the  underlying 
thoughts  and  aspirations  of  his  people  for  a  greater  unity,  and 
to  select  the  man,  who  of  all  men  of  his  day,  was  probably 
best  fitted  to  put  that  thought  into  effect.  It  needed  a  man 
with  the  boldness  and  insight  of  Elijah  to  see  the  necessity 
for  the  Hebrew  people  to  stand  for  the  rights  of  the  individual 
against  the  tyranny  of  a  king  like  Ahab  and  to  act  upon  the 
belief  that  Jehovah  would  overthrow  the  oppressor  of  the 
upright  and  would  protect  his  people,  if  they  implicitly  fol- 
lowed him  and  relied  upon  his  power,  in  order  to  establish 
for  the  Hebrews  and  for  all  free  peoples  since  that  time  the 
doctrine  of  individual  human  rights.  In  other  cases  we  find 
prophets  like  Nathan  and  Ahijah  and  Elisha,  and  later  Amos 
and  Isaiah,  and  finally  the  greatest  prophet  of  them  all,  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  discerning  first  the  needs  of  their  own  people  and 
finally  seeing  the  needs  of  all  peoples  and  crystallizing  in  their 
words  and  lives  the  principles  of  action  required  to  lead  the 
world  to  higher  levels. 

In  your  judgment  is  the  day  of  the  prophets  ended?     Many 


144  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

have  thought  that  Emerson  may  be  considered  a  prophet  in 
view  of  the  nature  and  effect  of  his  teachings.  Do  you  think 
so?  Do  you  consider  Martin  Luther  a  prophet?  Or  Karl 
Marx?  Must  a  man  to  be  a  prophet  contribute  a  great  idea 
to  the  world's  history,  or  is  any  man  of  great  influence  to  be 
so  counted?  Napoleon?  Caesar?  Lincoln?  Mohammed? 
Darwin?  Fichte?  Rousseau? 

IV. 

THE  SENSE  IN  WHICH  THE  ISRAELITES  WERE  THE 
CHOSEN  PEOPLE. 

The  story  given  in  the  Old  Testament  of  a  covenant,  a 
bargain  made  between  Jehovah  and  the  Israelites,  seems 
strange  to  most  people  of  the  present  day.  It  seems  at  first 
blush  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  God  that  he  should  make 
a  bargain  with  a  people,  and  it  seems  likewise  impossible  that 
any  people  could  so  know  the  will  of  the  Deity  that  they  could 
understand  the  terms  of  a  covenant  so  as  to  carry  it  out;  and 
yet  with  a  somewhat  different  statement  of  the  circumstances 
the  historical  significance  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  with 
the  Hebrews  becomes  clear. 

All  primitive  people,  like  the  early  Israelites,  looked  upon 
their  God  as  being  quite  like  themselves  in  nature,  though 
of  greater  power.  When  they  asked  protection  from  him, 
it  was  natural,  they  thought,  that  he  should  demand  some- 
thing in  return;  and  that,  as  the  different  tribes  might  make 
bargains  one  with  the  other,  so  might  the  gods  of  the  tribes 
make  bargains  with  one  another  and  with  their  peoples.  We 
find  numerous  illustrations  in  Hebrew  history;  for  example, 
the  vows  of  Jephthah  and  Saul.  It  is  a  most  remarkable 
tribute  to  the  insight  and  wisdom  of  Moses  that,  understanding 
the  normal  moral  characteristics  of  his  people,  he  should  have 
been  able  to  formulate  the  customs  that  had  gradually  de- 
veloped through  the  preceding  years  and  that  represented  the 
highest  intellectual  and  moral  principles  of  that  day  and 
generation  into  a  series  of  rules  of  action,  representing,  as 
he  felt  convinced,  the  will  of  Jehovah ;  and  then  that  he  should 
be  so  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  scientific  righteousness  as  to 
dare  to  say  to  his  people  that,  if  they  would  keep  those  laws, 
Jehovah  would  be  their  God  and  friend  and  defender  and 
protector  against  all  ills. 


A  Nation's  Destiny  145 

So  far  as  history  gives  us  records,  Moses  was  probably  the 
first  leader  in  history  who  recognized,  so  far  as  to  dare  act  upon 
the  principle,  the  immutability  and  strength  of  moral  laws  and 
their  permanent  influence  upon  the  welfare  of  humanity. 

At  the  present  day  in  speaking  of  physical  phenomena 
we  all  recognize  the  immutability  of  law.  We  speak  of 
nature's  laws  of  health;  we  say  that  if  we  obey  nature's  laws 
and  live  in  conformity  with  them,  we  shall  prosper.  We  say  and 
know  that  if  we  violate  those  laws,  we  shall  be  punished.  What 
has  become  a  mere  truism  in  the  realm  of  physical  law,  the 
ablest  thinkers  of  this  day,  attaining  finally  to  the  insight  of 
Moses,  have  come  to  recognize  as  true  also  regarding  the  so- 
called  moral  and  social  laws.  More  and  more  it  is  coming 
to  be  recognized  that  the  individuals  and  the  peoples  who 
obey  these  moral  and  social  laws  prosper;  that  those  who 
violate  them  are  punished. 

In  the  days  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  just  as  the  physical  laws 
of  nature  were  much  less  well  understood  than  at  the  present 
day,  so  many  of  the  moral  laws  were  less  well  known.  With 
their  belief  in  the  immediate  interference  of  Jehovah  in  political 
affairs  and  with  their  lack  of  knowledge  of  natural  law,  if  any 
ill,  like  a  great  plague,  befell  the  people,  they  ascribed  this 
to  the  displeasure  of  Jehovah  and  believed  that  in  some  way 
they  had  violated  their  covenant.  Doubtless  they  were  at 
times  mistaken  in  interpreting  the  nature  of  their  transgres- 
sion and  its  consequences.  There  is  no  apparent  reason  why 
a  plague  should  be  dependent  upon  the  taking  of  a  census, 
as  was  believed  in  the  case  of  David.  But  in  the  majority 
ol  cases  they  were  right:  the  people  had  violated  some  as  yet 
unknown  moral  or  physical  law.  As  their  prophets  acquired 
greater  knowledge  and  a  deeper  insight  into  the  causes  of 
national  prosperity,  they  were  often  able  to  declare  with 
authority  and  certainty  that,  unless  their  people  followed  the 
laws  of  Jehovah,  a  serious  punishment,  one  even  that  might 
result  in  the  overthrow  of  their  state,  would  surely  follow. 
They  had  agreed  to  obey  his  laws;  he  would  punish  them  if 
they  violated  them.  That  was  their  faith.  It  was  usually 
justified.  In  that  sense  the  Israelites  were  the  chosen  people 
of  Jehovah.  With  their  enlightened  consciences  and  with  a 
deeper  insight  into  the  significance  of  right  living  than  any 
other  people  in  history,  they  believed  that  they  could  attain 


146  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

the  highest  success  by  righteous  living,  and  that  their  ancestors 
had  so  pledged  them  to  such  living  with  Jehovah  that  they 
had  become  the  chosen  people.  It  needs  no  mystical  insight 
to  perceive  the  soundness  of  this  doctrine,  nor  does  it  need 
any  superstition  or  mysticism  to  see  that  any  individuals  or 
any  people  of  the  present  day  may  themselves  be  designated 
as  leaders  or  may  be  chosen  as  the  people  of  their  God,  if  they 
are  willing  in  the  same  way  to  pledge  themselves  to  righteous 
living  in  accordance  with  the  laws  established  by  the  forces, 
whatever  they  may  be,  physical,  intellectual,  moral,  spiritual, 
that  have  been  laid  down  by  the  unseen  and  as  yet  only  partially 
known  power  that  we  call  God. 

Mention  some  of  nature's  laws  that  are  even  now  frequently 
violated  by  ignorant  people.  Give  cases  of  prompt  and 
great  rewards  for  the  observance  of  God's  laws.  Would 
you  count  the  suppression  of  yellow  fever  in  Cuba  and  Panama 
a  case  of  that  kind?  It  is  asserted  by  historians  that  licentious- 
ness and  corruption  were  the  chief  causes  of  the  downfall  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  Is  this  an  illustration  of  the  failure 
of  a  great  nation  to  make  or  to  keep  a  covenant  with  God? 
Can  you  give  any  illustration  of  success  in  an  individual  or 
a  nation  —  in  the  long  run,  and  in  the  best  sense  of  the  word  — 
that  has  been  attained  by  wrong-doing? 

V. 
THE  DESTINY  OF  A  MODERN  NATION. 

In  this  same  sense  in  which  the  Hebrew  prophets  spoke  of 
Israel's  destiny  may  we  speak  of  the  destiny  of  a  nation  at  the 
present  day.  As  we  come  more  and  more  to  understand  the 
nature  of  political  and  social  forces,  we  can  see  how  the  life 
of  a  nation  is  dependent  upon  its  geographical  and  economic 
situation,  upon  the  character  and  degree  of  development  of 
its  people,  upon  its  relations  with  other  nations;  and  its  success 
depends  on  the  extent  to  which  its  people  use  these  forces 
so  as  to  produce  the  highest  degree  of  development  possible 
in  the  circumstances  in  which  they  live.  This  principle  of 
success  may  well  be  looked  upon  as  a  covenant  offered  by  nature 
or  by  God  whose  laws  control  nature. 

It  is  clear  that  the  destiny  of  no  two  peoples  can  be  the 
same.  The  natural  resources  of  one  country  make  of  its 


A  Nation's  Destiny  147 

people  a  nation  of  agriculturists.  Another  country  is  peculiarly 
well  adapted  to  satisfy  the  need  of  the  world  for  manufactured 
goods;  other  nations  from  their  gifts  can  best  serve  humanity 
by  the  development  of  their  artistic  tastes;  while  others  are 
better  suited  to  become  leaders  in  science  or  literature  or 
morals.  Culture  is  a  matter  of  law,  of  imitation,  of  the  develop- 
ment of  individual  gifts  under  right  training.  Freedom  can 
be  attained,  but  only  in  ways  that  conform  to  the  laws  of 
human  nature  or  developed  society.  Good  morals  will  bring 
in  the  end  the  best  results.  Every  ruler,  every  people,  every 
individual  is  in  position  to  make  a  covenant,  if  he  will.  But 
people  may  still  make  mistakes,  as  apparently  those  do  who 
still  believe  in  the  divine  right  of  kings. 

It  seems  clear  that  each  nation  will  be  best  fitted  to  fulfill 
its  own  destiny,  in  the  high  and  noble  sense  in  which  ancient 
Israel  conceived  its  lot  as  a  chosen  people  under  the  condition 
that  it  should  obey  the  law  of  Jehovah,  if  it  shall  render  the 
greatest  service  to  its  people  of  which  it  is  capable,  by  studying 
its  natural  resources  of  all  kinds,  economic,  political,  social, 
and  learning  the  ways  in  which  it  can  best  develop  them  so 
as  to  promote  the  welfare  of  humanity,  and  then  direct  its 
energies  so  as  to  attain  this  noblest  end.  Such  a  result  cannot 
be  attained  until  a  nation  is  ready  to  look  beyond  its  own 
borders  and  to  develop  itself,  not  selfishly,  but  for  world 
service. 

Can  a  nation  render  world  service  by  scientific  achievement? 
By  the  development  of  wealth?  By  the  extension  of  popular 
education?  By  militarism?  By  the  cultivation  of  moral 
philosophy?  By  setting  the  fashions  in  dress?  By  writing 
the  world's  music?  By  cultivating  religious  feeling? 

VI. 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL  CITIZEN'S  RELIGIOUS 

ATTITUDE. 

Religion  in  these  days  has  undoubtedly  acquired  a  meaning 
different  from  that  of  the  days  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  but 
even  at  the  present  date  there  is  probably  no  universal  agree- 
ment regarding  the  meaning  of  religion.  We  may,  however, 
broadly  define  a  man's  religion  as  his  attitude  toward  the 
forces  outside  himself  which  determine,  often  without  his 


148  The  Testing  of  a  Nation's  Ideals 

understanding  them,  his  fate.  In  other  words,  to  use  the 
common  phraseology,  a  man's  religion  is  his  attitude  toward 
God.  In  the  earlier  stages  of  society  man  looked  upon  the 
God  as  some  unknown  force,  sometimes  beneficent,  sometimes 
vengeful,  which  he  could  appease  by  gifts  and  to  which  he  should 
be  thankful  for  favors  received.  Differing  stages  of  civiliza- 
tion have  had  different  conceptions  of  these  unknown  forces 
that  they  have  called  gods. 

This  conception  of  religion  does  not  differ  materially  from 
that  of  the  modern  reverent  scientist  who  recognizes  the  laws 
of  nature  as  on  the  whole  beneficent  and  who  believes  that 
they  are  capable  of  being  gradually  more  and  more  understood, 
so  that  they  can  be  better  used  for  the  promotion  of  human 
welfare,  and  who  further  believes  that  the  laws  of  our  being 
are  not  only  physical  laws  but  also  laws  of  mind  and  of  society 
which  affect  us  morally  and  socially,  so  that  by  conscientious 
living  we  can  gradually  attain  a  higher  and  higher  good.  No 
two  peoples,  not  even  any  two  close  personal  friends,  have 
exactly  the  same  conception  of  God,  for  to  every  one  God 
represents,  under  Christian  teaching,  his  highest  conception 
of  what  is  good  and  right,  and  that  conception  naturally  differs 
owing  to  the  differing  circumstances  of  living.  Each  man's 
conception,  therefore,  of  the  laws  of  God  (or  of  nature  in  this 
broadest  sense)  is  individual  and  will  differ  in  details  from 
the  conception  of  others.  To  each  of  us  then,  the  service  of 
God,  if  we  abandon  all  theological  terms,  is  simply  the  render- 
ing to  one  another  and  to  the  world  the  best  service  that  we  find 
possible  and  the  doing  conscientiously  in  all  regards,  to  ourselves 
and  to  others,  our  duty.  The  best  and  truest  and  most  devoted 
of  men  can  thus  simply  gain  the  supreme  uplifting  joys  of 
religion  even  as  Jesus  did,  whose  service  was  and  could  be 
only  in  doing  His  Father's  work  by  giving  His  care  and  love 
and  even  His  life  for  His  fellowmen,  the  children  of  God. 
Religion  comes  thus  directly  home  to  each  man's  business 
and  bosom  and  to  his  life  as  a  citizen.  The  best  state  will 
grow  from  the  best  citizens.  The  highest  problem  of  the  state 
is  to  develop  such  citizens,  for  the  state  is  simply  the  organized 
association  of  its  individual  citizens,  and  the  government  of 
the  state  is  their  instrument  for  carrying  out  their  will.  The 
problem  of  citizenship  is  to  promote  in  the  best  ways  the  general 


A  Nation's  Destiny  149 

welfare.     This  brings  the  state  and  citizen  into  close  touch 
with  religion. 

If  this  is  what  is  meant  by  religion  and  the  religious  attitude 
(and  this  does  not  differ  in  essence  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus), 
it  becomes  evident  that,  as  the  destiny  of  the  Jewish  nation 
was  dependent  upon  the  religious  attitude  of  the  Jewish  people, 
so  the  destiny  of  every  modern  nation  is  dependent  upon  the 
religious  attitude  of  its  people.  If  each  nation's  highest 
destiny  is  to  render  to  humanity  the  greatest  services  of  which 
under  the  circumstances  it  is  capable,  this  destiny  will  first 
be  attained  when  each  individual's  religious  attitude  is  also 
that  of  devoted  service  to  what  he  believes  to  be  the  highest 
good  of  humanity.  This  was  evidently  the  fundamental 
principle  in  Jesus'  mind  when  he  declared  to  his  disciples: 
"Whosoever  will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister; 
and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant, 
even  as  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister." 

According  to  your  conception,  is  every  law  of  nature  a  law 
of  God?  Do  you  think  that  moral  and  social  laws  depend 
upon  natural  characteristics?  Are  there  any  so-called  laws 
of  morals  or  social  laws  (not  political  statutes  passed  by  men) 
that  are  not  also  natural  laws?  Are  the  laws  of  a  true  religion 
contrary  to  natural  laws?  How  can  you  observe  God's  laws 
otherwise  than  by  observing  natural  laws  (physical,  mental, 
moral  and  social)? 

Subjects  for  Further  Study. 

(1)  Trace  the  development  of  Israel's  democratic  ideals,  noting  the 
inheritances  from  the  early  nomadic  life,  the  incorporation  of  these  ideals 
in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  and  the  struggles  to  maintain  them  in  the 
more  complex  life  of  Canaan. 

(2)  Read  thoughtfully  Washington's  Farewell  Address,  Lincoln's  First 
and  Second  Inaugural  Addresses  and  Lowell's  Address  on  Democracy. 
If  the  people  and  government  of  the  United  States  were  to  live  up  to 
the  principles  of  these  addresses,  would  the  American  people  prosper 
and  take  their  place  as  the  leaders  of  the  world  in  political  development? 
Find  passages  in  these  addresses  which  show  that  the  writers  believed 
that  they  were  stating  fundamental  social  laws  which  to  them  had  also 
a  divine  sanction.     Would  this  be  considered  by  them  as  a  covenant 
with  God,  if  they  believed  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  consciously 
accepted  the  righteous  way  of  living  suggested  in  their  addresses? 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


TTtrt-5- 


FLB 


MM-® 


JUL  23  1942 


1980 


LD  21-100m-8,'34 


ID 


859808 

JS/2/ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


